I 
H 





Class F )K % 5 

Book >!) { o 



Copyright N 



10 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT: 



SCIENCE AND PRAYER 



SCIENCE AND PRAYER 
AND OTHER PAPERS 



BY 

GALUSHA ANDERSON, S.T.D., LL.D. 

Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago. 

Joint-translator of Asterius' Sermons, Ancient Sermons 

for Modern Times; author of The Story of a 

Border City during the Civil War; 

Hitherto Untold; and When 

Neighbors were 

Neighbors. 



At eve hold not thy hand. 

— Montgomery. 




THE PILGRIM PRESS 

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO 






Copyright 1915 
By GALUSHA ANDERSON 



THE PILGRIM PRESS 
BOSTON 


4 ip- 


NOV 3 1315 


(g)CI.A414372 


H-Q'/ ' 



\S 



^ TO THOSE WHO, IN FORMER DAYS, 

SAT AS STUDENTS IN MY CLASSROOM AND FOR WHOM 

LOVE, WITH EVER-INCREASING WARMTH, GLOWS 

IN MY HEART, THIS VOLUME 

IS AFFECTIONATELY 

DEDICATED. 



r 



FOKEWOKD 

The essays contained in this volume are chosen 
from among many on account of the permanent 
and vital importance of the themes discussed in 
them. Some of them have never before been pub- 
lished, but a part of them have appeared from 
time to time in periodicals or in pamphlet form. 

The first, which furnishes the leading title of 
this book, was prepared, at the request of the edi- 
tor, for The North American Review. At the 
time not a few scientists were stoutly contending, 
since the laws of nature are immutable, that the 
belief that God answers prayer for rain or the re- 
covery of the sick is not only untenable but even 
preposterous. And some such scientists still lin- 
ger among us. 

The second paper, written only a few months 
ago, is an effort to free the doctrine of the atone- 
ment of all arbitrary elements and to interpret 
on natural and scientific grounds what the Scrip- 
tures say of the sufferings of Christ. 

The Supreme End of Theological Schools is an 
address delivered before The Robinson Rhetori- 
cal Society at the semi-centennial of The Roches- 
ter Theological Seminary. 

The interpretation of John 21 :15-17 was pre- 
sented at the Eighth Conference, held at All 
Saints Memorial Church, Providence, R. I. May 



Science and Prayer 

11th, 1904, on the Gospel of John. It afterwards 
appeared in the volume entitled Addresses on the 
Gospel of St. John. 

The generosity of the editors of The North Am- 
erican Review, in permitting me to include among 
the papers of this volume Science and Prayer, is 
warmly appreciated. Also the courtesy of the 
editors of The Review and Expositor, in per- 
mitting me to transfer to these pages the essay on 
The Atonement through Sympathy is gratefully 
acknowledged. 

My cockle-shell is launched with some misgiv- 
ing. May a kind Providence steer her clear of 
destructive mines, shield her from bombs dropped 
from the upper air, from torpedoes shot from the 
depths beneath and give her a prosperous voyage ! 

Galtjsha Andekson. 
Newtonville, Mass. 



CONTENTS 

I. Science and Prayer 1 

II. The Atonement through Sympathy ... 19 

III. The Fundamental Moral Attribute of God . 51 

IV. The Import op John 21:15-17 73 

V. The Reasonableness op Eternal Punishment 105 

VI. Premillenarianism 125 

VII. The Supreme End op Theological Schools . 161 

VIII. The Use op the Scriptures in Theology, A 
Review op a Book by the Late Professor 

William Newton Clarke, D. D. . . . 203 

IX. How to Develop Christian Benevolence . . 243 



SCIENCE AND PEAYER 



SCIENCE AND PKAYER 

God made man in his own image. God and man 
are kin. On account of this kinship it is as natural 
for man to resort to God in prayer as it is for a 
child to ask a gift of an earthly father whom he 
loves and in whom he confides. Jesus Christ, the 
peerless, the Son of God, prayed and taught his 
disciples to pray. Without so much as the shadow 
of a doubt he said, "And all things, whatsoever 
ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. ' ' 
(Matt 21: 22.) 

But, in our day, a class of able men, many of 
them distinguished scientists, think that the bib- 
lical view of prayer is altogether false; that it 
will do well enough for children and ignorant men 
and women, but can no longer satisfy the intel- 
ligent and the learned. These men represent 
prayer as futile, because the laws of the material 
universe are absolutely immutable — nothing can 
in the least change or modify them ; therefore, to 
pray for rain or for recovery from sickness is as 
great a folly as it would be to attempt to dam up 
Niagara with a straw. When the atmospheric 
conditions are fulfilled, the rain will descend; 
when the physical and hygienic conditions are 
suitable, the sick will be restored to health. But 
these scientists do not all agree in opinion any 

[3] 



Science and Prayer 

more than the theologians do. Some of them are 
theists: their God is a personal God, who hears 
prayer. He may, they affirm, in answer to prayer, 
bestow on men spiritual blessings. If they pray 
for enlightenment, the spirit illuminates their 
minds; if for forgiveness of sin, that blessing is 
bestowed and the assurance of it; but, say they, 
we cannot rationally pray for physical good, for 
material blessings, since in the material realm all 
is governed by laws fixed, unchangeable. 

Still others affirm that prayer is a rational exer- 
cise, not because the petitioner directly receives 
in answer to his prayer either spiritual or material 
good, but on account of the reflex influence of 
prayer upon his own mind and heart. It changes 
him. It lifts him up into communion with Him 
in whom is "no variableness, neither shadow of 
turning. ' ' No real answer to prayer comes down 
from God to us, but by prayer we are lifted up 
toward God and transformed into his likeness. 
That there is this reflex influence in prayer, no 
candid observer can for a moment doubt ; but that 
this is all that is implied in answer to prayer, we 
are not yet ready to admit. 

Such, then, are the views, not of all, but of many 
of the scientists of our day. "Whatever may be the 
diversities in their views, there is substantial 
agreement in this, that the immutability of the 
laws of nature shows the folly of prayer, especially 
for material blessings. That such views are at 
variance with the Scriptures, the dullest can see. 
Both the biblical view and this of the materialistic 

[4] 



Science and Prayer 

scientists cannot be true ; they are utterly at vari- 
ance with each other, absolutely contradictory. 
Christ says with positiveness and with sweeping 
generality, "Ask, and it shall be given you"; the 
scientist says it is folly to ask, as no blessing, 
since the laws of the material universe are immu- 
table, can be bestowed in direct answer to prayer. 
It is clear, then, that either Christ is mistaken 
or the materialistic scientists are. 

We wish, "with malice toward none and with 
charity for all," to call attention to some points 
in the position of those scientists, who have es- 
sayed to be not only our scientific, but also our 
religious teachers, which seem to us to be weak 
and untenable ; and by our tentative criticism to 
suggest that perchance the soundest science does 
not yet summon us to abandon the biblical view of 
prayer ; that it is quite possible that he who spake, 
his enemies being the judges, as never man spake, 
never dropped a word in reference to prayer 
which conflicts in any degree with absolute science. 
The question before us, then, is whether the doc- 
trine of prayer as presented by Christ in the New 
Testament is at variance with established science. 

Let us first briefly define our terms. What is 
science 1 It is what we really know in all depart- 
ments of investigation, whether the subject be the 
material universe or the acts and states of the 
soul revealed to us through consciousness. To 
know scientifically, to be sure, implies accurate 
observation, analysis, generalization, and correct 
classification ; but all these processes simply help 

[5] 



Science and Prayer 

us really to know, and to know is the pith of the 
signification of the term science. 

An honest, rigid application of this definition 
would reduce many ponderous volumes on science 
to the compass of books fitted to take their place 
in some vest-pocket series. Much of so-called sci- 
ence is nothing but theories or hypotheses to ac- 
count for phenomena which everywhere confront 
us, many of which still remain unexplained. We 
do not object to these hypotheses as such; they 
are good in their place. They are the tools with 
which scientific men do their work. All advance- 
ment in scientific knowledge has been made by 
using them ; but until proved to be true, they are 
no more science than the chisel with which the 
sculptor works is the statue which he brings forth 
from the marble. We must make a sharp dis- 
tinction between science, that which is absolutely 
known, and hypothesis, by means of which we 
strive to know. 

On the other hand, what is prayer? It would 
not specially serve our purpose to attempt a com- 
prehensive definition of it; but we wish to call 
attention to a single element which should enter 
into every just definition of prayer. It must be 
manifest to any one who thinks at all, that men 
are dependent beings. In the family, in society, 
and in business, we all, to a greater or less extent, 
lean on one another, children on their parents, 
wives on their husbands, the ignorant and the 
weak on the learned and the strong, the poor on 
the rich and the rich on the poor. Now, lying at 

[6] 



Science and Prayer 

the very core of prayer is the fact of our depend- 
ence on God. By asking blessings of him we 
confess that dependence; and in this confession 
of dependence we not only submit our weakness 
to his strength, but our ignorance to his wisdom. 
We ask, conscious that we may make grievous 
mistakes in asking, so that the innermost spirit 
of true prayer is the submission of the petitioner 
to God. The cry of Christ in Gethsemane, as he 
prayed in agony that the cup might pass from 
him, "Not my will but thine be done," is the 
undertone of all genuine prayer ; so that God an- 
swers us truly, when, instead of giving us what 
we ask, he gives us rather the thing which, in his 
wisdom, he sees that we need. 

The real difficulty in the way of God's answer- 
ing prayer, according to some able scientists, is, 
as has already been noted, the fact that the laws 
of the material universe are absolutely unchange- 
able. This has led some theistic scientists to affirm 
that prayer for spiritual blessings may be an- 
swered, while prayer for physical good — for ex- 
ample, for rain in time of drought — is folly. But 
if fixity of law makes prayer for physical good 
absurd, it must make equally foolish prayer for 
spiritual blessings, since law is just as fixed in 
the realm of mind or spirit as in the realm of 
matter. The laws by which the mind is developed 
are just as immutable as the laws by which the 
oak is unfolded from the acorn ; the laws by which 
we think are as rigid and fixed as those which 
regulate the rivers in their flow or the clouds 

[7] 



Science and Prayer 

which sweep across the sky. If, on account of the 
fixedness of law, it is absurd to pray for rain, it 
is for the same reason equally absurd to pray that 
the divine Spirit may illuminate our minds and 
guide our thoughts. If, then, God may answer 
prayer for spiritual gifts, he may, in spite of the 
unchangeableness of law, answer prayer for phys- 
ical blessings. 

But we also suggest that the position which we 
combat is probably untenable, on the ground that 
these able scientists do not, in stating their objec- 
tions to prayer, use the term law with that pre- 
cision of meaning that is requisite in scientific 
discussion. Sometimes they personify it. It seems 
clothed with personality, as when they tell us that 
the laws of nature do this and that. They often 
deify it, ascribing to it attributes which the devout 
theist ascribes only to God. This is the method 
of poetry rather than of science. Every thinker 
knows that the term law has several distinct mean- 
ings. It will be sufficient for our purpose to note 
barely two. We call attention to the first simply 
because of its diversity from the second, so that 
by the contrast we may add to the vividness of 
the second meaning, on which we propose to com- 
ment. First, we speak of moral law. It is dis- 
tinguished by oughtness. We are so made that 
we discern a distinction between right and wrong ; 
we know intuitively that they are opposites. Men 
universally recognizing this distinction feel that 
they ought to do the right and shun the wrong. 
This ought is mightier than all other forces which 

[8] 



Science and Prayer 

impel men to action. This distinction of right 
from wrong, and the oughtness which presses a 
man, as with the superincumbent weight of a 
mountain, to do the right, constitute the essence 
of moral law. Bentham, in his utilitarian argu- 
ment in reference to morals, was so troubled with 
this element of oughtness that he declared that 
the word ought " ought to be banished from the 
vocabulary of morals." From the inexorable 
necessities of his own being he could not say it 
in any other way. 

Now, when we come to talk of the laws of the 
material universe, we have in mind a very differ- 
ent conception. No oughtness appears. We mean 
simply the processes of nature, — the ways in 
which things, so far as the observation of men has 
extended, come to pass. When the cold reaches 
a given degree of intensity, water freezes; we 
say that that is a material law. When the higher 
temperature of spring comes, the ice melts and 
vegetation starts; we call these processes laws. 
When vapor freezes, it takes the form of crystals ; 
and this process we call a material law. The pro- 
foundest scientist cannot carry his analysis any 
further . He knows more than a clown or a child 
only because, by study and extended observation, 
he has seen more of the processes of nature, and 
has generalized and grouped them. In any single 
example, he can only see what the ignorant may 
see, — that a law of nature is simply the way in 
which a thing, in the material world or in the 
world of mind, is done. 

[9] 



Science and Prayer 

Now, since in these varied laws of nature we 
see that certain useful ends are met, the sugges- 
tion inevitably comes that intelligence established 
these laws or now works out these varied and 
beneficent processes. Since a law of nature is 
nothing more than the way in which a certain 
thing is accomplished, it is assuredly not contrary 
to anything which science has discovered to con- 
sider the laws of nature simply as God's ways 
of doing things. Such a supposition does no vio- 
lence to scientific method, while it provides a suit- 
able cause for the beneficent element in these laws. 
If it is asked why these processes, or laws of 
nature, on the supposition that they are God's 
ways of working, are fixed, invariable, we find a 
ready answer in the biblical revelation of God's 
nature and character. Being absolutely perfect, 
when, for the first time, he did anything, he did 
it with absolute perfection. When a thing is per- 
fect, there can be no change for the better, since 
nothing can be any more than perfect; and God 
cannot change the processes of nature, so that 
they would be in any sense imperfect, since that 
would be a contradiction of his own absolute per- 
fection. "We find therefore in the character of 
God, as presented to us in the Bible, the sufficient 
reason for the immutability of natural laws, when 
we regard them as simply his methods of acting. 
So when David sang, "The Lord also thundered 
in the heavens, and the highest gave his voice," 
he did not even in his imaginative song utter 
anything opposed to the strictest science ; in such 

[10] 



Science and Prayer 

diction, poetry and science "met together' ' and 
"kissed each other/ ' And since these processes 
of nature may, without the slightest conflict with 
science, be considered simply the actings of God 
immanent in his own creation, it is not impossible 
that, working by these unchangeable processes, 
he may answer the prayers of his children. 

And it will not be difficult for us to discover 
by analogy how, in perfect harmony with the fact 
of the immutability of natural laws, God may do 
this. The perfect confidence of men in the fixity 
of natural laws underlies all their acts. Without 
such confidence they never would construct or 
work the simplest machinery. They would not 
dare to sail lake or ocean, lest by a change of 
natural laws their vessel should suddenly sink 
rather than float. But because they know these 
laws to be immutable, they use them with confi- 
dence in all their manifold activities. Now, from 
analogy, we are able to see how the immutability 
of natural laws, instead of being an obstacle stand- 
ing in the way of God's answering prayer, may? 
become rather the very means by which he an- 
swers every prayer of faith. Men, because these 
natural laws are unchangeable, are able, by the 
adjustment to each other of even a very few of 
them, to secure the most wonderful results. The 
adjustment to each other of a few immutable laws 
gives us the steam-engine, which moves most of 
the machinery of the civilized nations. The adjust- 
ment of a few immutable laws drives our great 
merchant ships around the globe. The bird which 

[11] 



Science and Prayer 

darts upward into the air and onward through it 
with such great velocity, instinctively adjusts a 
few unchangeable laws to bring about this sur- 
prising result. If men, with their limited knowl- 
edge, and the birds of the air by instinct, can use 
unchangeable laws to reach such marvelous and 
varied results, can not God, who established these 
laws, so adjust them to each other as to answer 
every true prayer breathed into his ear? Immu- 
tability of law, then, does not make prayer even 
for physical blessings a folly, but rather suggests 
to us how God, because of this very immutability, 
may answer every true petition. 

Then we are never to forget that at the best 
we know but little. La Place is reported to have 
said, just before he died, "What we do not know 
is enormous.' ' We have discovered, by centuries 
of toil, a few natural laws. As the circle of our 
knowledge has widened, we have become aware of 
still greater regions just beyond, that no human 
mind has ever explored. And in the future, as 
our knowledge extends, we shall ever grow more 
and more keenly alive to the infinite reaches of 
being and of law which we do not know. What 
we know of the laws of the material universe com- 
pared with what we do not know, is like the hand- 
ful of sand in the hour-glass compared with the 
vast Sahara. If man, with his very limited knowl- 
edge of unchangeable laws, can by their adjust- 
ment to each other achieve so much, who shall 
limit in his achievements Him who understands 
all laws, and who, by the simple act of his will, can 

[12] 



Science and Prayer 

adjust these myriads of laws to each other so as 
to satisfy the cry of every one of his creatures! 
Moreover, those who have arrayed science and 
prayer against each other have sometimes com- 
placently sneered at those who still believe that 
God answers prayer as being honest enough, but 
pitiably unscientific. Now, such men ought not to 
complain, if we demand of them what they demand 
of others. No theory designed to account for any 
class of phenomena is worth anything unless it 
takes into consideration all the known facts and 
makes suitable provision for them. Those who 
contend that, on the basis of the immutability of 
natural laws, it is folly to pray, have never in 
their theory made full provision for the entire 
content of the fact of prayer. If one thing in 
reference to man has been established beyond 
every other, it is the fact that he has distinctively 
a religious nature. Wherever found, be he savage 
or civilized, he is religious. He universally has his 
places of worship, rude or artistic; he has his 
shrines and altars, and offers to his god or gods 
sacrifices bloody or unbloody. Heathen, Moham- 
medan, and Christian alike pray. Even men who 
declare themselves atheists will sometimes pray, 
when they get into a pinch ; and in their highest 
and best moods will utter words of praise to Him 
whom they declare not to exist. Now, a fact so 
universal as prayer must be in some way ac- 
counted for. Does it not carry the evidence in 
itself that there is an answer to it? We find it 
to be a general law of our being that satisfaction 

[13] 



Science and Prayer 

is provided for every natural and right desire. 
We hunger, — without us are manifold harvests 
and barns bursting with plenty ; we thirst, — with- 
out us are lakes, bubbling fountains and purling 
brooks; we long for the beautiful, — without us 
in myriads of objects is beauty more subtle and 
delicate than was ever expressed by the brush 
of the painter or the pen of the poet; we crave 
the sublime, — and cataract, and mountain, and 
heaving ocean, and the awful storm, answer the 
inward desire. As, in these cases, the hunger, the 
thirst, the longing, and the craving are evidences 
within us of the satisfaction without us, so prayer, 
the deep longing or craving of man's religious 
nature, carries with it the decisive evidence that 
there is without an answer which will meet and 
satisfy it. If this be not so, then for our physical 
and intellectual cravings answers beautiful and 
complete have been provided, while the cravings 
of our higher religious nature have been left un- 
cared for and unsatisfied. This a school-boy could 
not fail to stamp as the rankest absurdity. Prayer 
is either answered, or else those desires which 
impel man to come into communion with God are, 
of all the desires of his being, alone a mockery. 
Is any one credulous enough to believe that? 

Any sound theory of prayer must also take into 
account another fact, namely, that of testimony. 
Men affirm that God has heard their prayers. 
From the number of witnesses let us exclude all 
those who might reasonably be accused of fanat- 
icism ; yet we have failed to see why the testimony 

[14] 



Science and Prayer 

of a fanatical Christian is not just as trustworthy 
as that of a fanatical skeptic. We will exclude, 
too, all witnesses who may be reasonably sus- 
pected of having had collusion with each other. 
Then we will sift the testimony of the clear- 
headed, unbiased witnesses, striking out every 
statement which may, with the slightest show of 
reason, be considered as an illusion of honest but 
mistaken men. Even then, the remaining testi- 
mony, gathered from the witnesses of all time, 
all bearing on this one point, would, if printed in 
books, make a vast library. Can any just theory 
in reference to prayer omit a fact of such mag- 
nitude? Would it be scientific to ignore all this 
testimony of the purest and best men that ever 
lived? If their testimony is declared fanatical, 
would that not prove too much, if mere assertion 
ever proves anything? Would it not show that 
the fanaticism of the ages has contained within 
itself the godliness, the purity, the virtue of the 
ages? No, there is no way in which we can scien- 
tifically thrust such testimony out of sight. It 
stands as solid as granite, as clear as crystal, and 
he who would be scientific in handling the fact of 
prayer must take it up into his theory and account 
for it. 

If it should be said that prayer and its supposed 
answer is simply a happy coincidence, we might 
grant that in one, or two, or three cases it may 
be, and do no despite to science. But take fifty 
cases, or five hundred, or ten thousand, and de- 
clare that in every case we have only a lucky coin- 

[15] 



Science and Prayer 

cidence, so large a number of coincidences would 
tax our credulity far more than to admit that God 
in reality answered the prayers. Such a multi- 
tude of coincidences would be vastly more mys- 
terious than the fact that thousands of men cried 
unto the Lord, and he, in mercy and love, heard 
their cries and satisfied their wants. By no device 
can we, with a strict scientific spirit and method, 
brush aside the vast mass of testimony that God 
has answered prayer. 

Our argument in brief, then, is this : from any 
proper definition of science and prayer, we can- 
not discover anything within them that brings 
them into conflict. Those who rule out prayer 
for physical blessings on the ground of the immu- 
tability of natural laws must, if consistent, rule 
out prayer for spiritual blessings also, since law 
is as fixed in the realm of spirit as in the realm 
of matter. Confusion often results from a lack 
of precision in the use of the term law — a physical 
law being, to our observation, only a process in 
the material world; but as we see that in the 
process beneficent ends are reached, that fact sug- 
gests that the process may be simply God's 
method of acting. By these very processes, there- 
fore, God may answer prayer. As men, by ad- 
justing to each other the few immutable laws of 
the material world which they have laboriously 
learned, reach all the varied and marvelous results 
which we see produced by mechanical contriv- 
ances, so God, who works in and through all the 
laws of his universe, by their adjustment, without 

[16] 



Science and Prayer 

in the slightest degree infringing them, may an- 
swer every prayer of his people. Any truly scien- 
tific theory of prayer must account for the fact 
of prayer, and deal dispassionately with the mass 
of testimony given, down through all the ages, that 
God has, in almost innumerable instances, an- 
swered prayer. 

After a calm, dispassionate examination of all 
that has been written by materialistic scientists 
about the impotence and folly of prayer, we may, 
without the slightest danger of being unscientific, 
still believe and obey Him who, speaking with 
unerring wisdom, said, ' t Ask, and it shall be given 
you." 



[17] 



THE ATONEMENT THEOUGH SYMPATHY 



THE ATONEMENT THROUGH SYMPATHY 

Waltek Henry Pater, in his Marius the Epi- 
curean* says, "The constituent practical differ- 
ence between men" is "their capacity for sym- 
pathy." He who is able to apprehend most clearly 
the wretchedness of those in distress, to feel their 
sorrows most keenly, to go down to the lowest 
depths of their misery and suffer with them, is 
rightly esteemed the greatest. Whenever such a 
man appears, the multitude hails him as a hero. 

Now, it is a matter of common observation that 
those who are purest and best most deeply sym- 
pathize with those in misery. To be sure some who 
have gone to great lengths in sin and crime are 
at times touched with pity, when they see their 
friends or neighbors suddenly overwhelmed in 
some dire calamity. But such cases are excep- 
tional. One of the most awful effects of sin is 
to harden the heart, to blunt the moral sensibili- 
ties. It dries up the fountain of sympathy and 
tends to make men dead to the woes of others, 
while the spiritual renewal of men and their con- 
sequent fellowship with God in Christ gives them 
an ever enlarging capacity for sympathy. And 
the more Christlike they become the more broad 
and profound is their capacity to suffer with 
others. 

* Vol. II, p. 203. 

[21] 



Science and Prayer 

But Christ himself is absolutely perfect both in 
knowledge and in compassion. He not only appre- 
hends all the miseries of our race, but through his 
sympathy and incarnation is identified with all 
who suffer. Not a sigh bursts from the lips of 
any one however obscure that he does not hear; 
not a tear stains any human cheek that he does 
not see; there is not a quivering nerve, nor a 
throbbing brain, nor an aching heart that does 
not stir the depths of his divine compassion. 
Since he is the God-man he bears on his infinite 
yet human heart the infirmities, the distresses, 
the manifold woes of the whole sinful human 
race. 

Let us now note briefly some references in the 
Gospels to his wonderful sympathy. Again and 
again we are told that he was moved with com- 
passion, or that he had compassion on those in 
distress. His miracles of healing were but the 
outflow of his sympathy. Seeing misery and being 
conscious that he had the power to alleviate it, 
his pity spontaneously expressed itself in healing 
disease, cleansing lepers, casting out demons, and 
at times in raising the dead, that he might thereby 
wipe away the tears of the bereaved. In the Gos- 
pels, we have specific accounts of scarcely a hun- 
dredth part of these miracles of mercy. The 
great mass of them are barely indicated by gen- 
eral statements, as in Mark 1 : 32-34. 

Later in his ministry, when in controversy with 
the Pharisees, Christ appealed to the signs 
wrought by him as a conclusive proof of his divine 

[22] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

mission, but lie did not work them just to show 
that he was sent by God. They were but the 
natural expression of his tender sympathy with 
those in sharp distress. Being so understood, 
they become all the stronger evidence that Jesus 
was sent by his and our Father to be the Saviour 
of lost men. 

But the religious condition of the multitudes, 
blighted by sin, and crushed under the burdens 
laid upon them by their professed teachers, spe- 
cially broke up the fountain of his compassion, 
" because they were distressed and scattered, as 
sheep not having a shepherd." 

At times his sympathy with those in trouble 
vented itself in tears. But Jesus was no weakling ; 
he was the most manly of men. No one ever 
exceeded him in downright courage. In the teeth 
of adverse public opinion, he always calmly and 
resolutely said and did what he knew to be right. 
The threats of those in authority, clothed with 
all the power of government, never caused him 
to swerve a hair's breadth from the straight line 
of duty. When no one at Jerusalem cared or 
dared to cleanse the temple from mammon and 
restore it to spiritual service, he did it single- 
handed with a scourge of cords. When, standing 
under oath before the judges of the Sanhedrin, 
he knew that the confession of the truth as to who 
he was would nail him to a Roman cross, without 
the slightest evasion he made it. He not only 
answered the question put to him by the high 
priest, but lifted the curtain of the future that 

[23] 



Science and Prayer 

his august questioner might catch a glimpse of his 
future glory, majesty and power. But his cheeks 
that never paled before the face of clay, at times, 
through sympathy for others, were wet with tears. 
" Jesus wept." When we consider who he was, 
these two words are the sublimest utterance of 
all literature. He came to Bethany, where lived 
three of his dearest friends, Mary, Martha and 
Lazarus. But four days before, Lazarus had 
died ; still he claimed that he could wake him out 
of his sleep. So he went with the grief- stricken 
sisters towards their brother's tomb, and his sym- 
pathy with them was so profound that it ex- 
pressed itself in trickling tears. 

We turn from this touching domestic scene to 
an exhibition of Jesus' sympathy national in its 
scope. He was going up to Jerusalem for the last 
time. He came to the brow of Olivet. The city 
beyond the valley of the Kedron was in full view 
— the city that had so often rejected and stoned 
to death God's prophets, and now had rejected 
him, and was about to demand his crucifixion at 
the hands of the Gentiles. He, however, seemed 
quite oblivious to the crowning wrong and shame 
that he was so soon to suffer, and, without a 
thought of self, poured out the full tide of his 
sympathy on the doomed city. As he looked upon 
it, he could not suppress his tears. 

His triumphal entry into it was just at hand. 
Already the rejoicing multitude was crying, "Ho- 
sanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that 
cometh in the name of the Lord : Hosanna in the 

[24] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

highest." Already they were strowing palm- 
branches and their loose-flowing robes in his path- 
way; but his ear was deaf to their praises and 
glad shouts of welcome, and his eye was blind to 
the splendid pageant. While the multitude re- 
joiced, he wept. He cried, "If thou hadst known 
in this day, even thou, the things which belong 
unto peace ! ' ' Jesus left that sentence unfinished ; 
it ended in silent tears, more eloquent than words. 
After a little, recovering himself, he added ; ' ' But 
now they are hid from thine eyes." 

To be sure, in his cry we catch the note of fervid, 
national patriotism. As a Jewish citizen, if noth- 
ing more, the impending destruction of Jerusa- 
lem well nigh broke his heart. His emotional 
utterance brings to mind the plaintive words of 
the Jewish captives in Babylon: 

"If I forget thee, Jerusalem, 
Let my right hand forget her skill. 
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, 
If I remember thee not; 
If I prefer not Jerusalem 
Above my chief joy." (Ps. 137.) 

But while the patriotic note is unmistakably 
heard in the cry of Jesus, it is but a sad under- 
tone. The spiritual destruction of the people was 
the thought that pierced him through and through. 
This is clear from his cognate cry, twice repeated. 
Comparatively early in his ministry, when, accord- 
ing to Luke, he was going up to Jerusalem, some 
Pharisees warned him to get away, since Herod 
wished to kill him. But in spite of the bloody 

[25] 



Science and Prayer 

threat, he determined to go on boldly with his 
work, saying that "it cannot be that a prophet 
perish out of Jerusalem. ' ' Then overwhelmed 
with the thought of the inevitable destruction of 
the city, he cried ; " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that 
killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are 
sent unto thee ! how often would I have gathered 
thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
own brood under her wings, and ye would not." 
Here we see that it was the spiritual destruction 
of her "children" that stirred the deepest depths 
of his sympathy. 

Once more the same cry burst from his lips. 
It was the last Passover week. Jesus was in 
Jerusalem. He delivered a remarkable address 
both to his disciples and to the Pharisees, un- 
masking the sins of the latter and appealing to 
his followers to avoid them. In this speech he 
pronounced upon the chief men of his nation seven 
woes so awful that they sound like seven thunders 
of divine judgment in the midst of his gospel of 
grace. But even these terrible words pulsated 
with his love. It was the last great effort of Christ 
to awaken the consciences of the Pharisees and 
win them to himself, so the thunder of his wrath 
ended in a divine sob, as he cried ' i Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem." He stood within the walls of the 
sacred city when he uttered for the second time 
these words. It was the headquarters of those 
whom he addressed and denounced to their faces. 
"Verily," he said, "all these things shall come 
upon this generation," and "thy children" is 

[26] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

again the burden of his soul. That they should 
reject him, their Saviour, for whose coming they 
had so long looked and perish in their unbelief, 
broke his heart. 

But his matchless sympathy was not hemmed in 
by state boundaries. A great apostolic writer 
says that "in the days of his flesh,' ' he "offered 
up prayers and supplications with strong crying 
and tears, unto him that was able to save him from 
death. ' ' These words evidently portray the agony 
of Christ in Gethsemane. He had wept over Jeru- 
salem, which was the life and heart of his nation ; 
in the garden he now wept over a lost world. To 
save it he resigned himself to death, with all that 
that awful word signifies. His prayer, that he 
might be delivered from death, was answered in 
his complete submission to the divine will, which 
was the unmistakable undertone of every petition 
that he offered in Gethsemane, "not as I will, but 
as thou wilt." 

Here, just before his death on the cross, we see 
how his overflowing sympathy encircled the globe, 
embracing all nations, kindreds and tongues. In 
the garden and on the cross the sin of our race 
pressed down on his heart like the superincum- 
bent weight of a mountain. He sweat great drops 
of blood. He cried out, but it was the strong cry 
of perfect manhood. Tears coursed down his 
cheeks; they were the tears of the Son of God 
and of the Son of man, and they expressed the 
unbounded love of God for, and the unfathomable 
sympathy of God with, man. 

[27] 



Science and Prayer 

But lie himself has given a far more profound 
expression of his tender, brooding sympathy with 
all men than has fallen from the lips or flowed 
from the pen of any of his apostles. He was con- 
sciously near the close of his earthly life. Geth- 
semane lay just before him; a little beyond it 
was the cross. To his disciples he had more than 
once announced his death. They were bewildered 
and perplexed. Not apprehending the nature of 
his kingdom, his preannounced death seemed to 
them irretrievable disaster. He sat on the Mount 
of Olives. The disciples, filled with apprehension 
and fear, gathered around him. Full of pity for 
them, he tried to enlighten them, to tell them what 
his Kingdom was and what his going away from 
them meant. He took them beyond the dispensa- 
tion which by his ministry had been ushered in 
to the time when he shall come in his glory to 
judge all men. He drew before them a picture 
of the general judgment, so clear, so simple, so 
sublime that it has entered into and shaped the 
thought of the whole Christian era in reference 
to the future state of the righteous and the wicked. 
And the crown of his matchless statement is the 
reply of the Judge to the humble righteous, who 
are unable to recall the good deeds that he declares 
they have done to him. " Verily I say unto you, 
inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my breth- 
ren, even these least, ye did it unto me. ' ' He so 
completely identifies himself with them, that he 
who feeds one of them feeds him, he that clothes 
one of them clothes him, he who takes a homeless 

[28] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

one under his roof and cares for him, shelters and 
cares for Christ himself; he who honors one of 
his brethren honors him; he who neglects or de- 
spises one of them, even the least, neglects or 
despises him. 

But how is such identification effected? how 
brought about ? Not by extinguishing personality, 
not by monism, which teaches that the universe, 
man and God are one substance; which so oblit- 
erates personality as to destroy personal respon- 
sibility and accountability. For while all monists 
are not pantheists, all monism is pantheism. But 
the great Teacher, while identifying himself with 
his people, is still their Judge, and calls them 
to account for what they have, and have not 
done. 

But what did Jesus mean by "my brethren"? 
what do these words include? None will doubt 
that Christ included in the phrase, "my breth- 
ren/ ' his own followers. They bear his likeness, 
possess his spirit and by virtue of their regenera- 
tion or re-creation are his sons and daughters. 
The author of the epistle to the Hebrews probably 
had in mind the words of Jesus, on which we 
comment, when he wrote, "Both he that sancti- 
fieth and they that are sanctified are all of one ; 
for which cause he," in his glorified state, "is not 
ashamed," or delights, "to call them brethren." 
Other Scriptures tell us that believers are in 
Christ and Christ is in them; so that whatever 
is done to them is done to him. On this basis the 
glorified Saviour appealed to Saul of Tarsus, who 

[29] 



Science and Prayer 

was cruelly maltreating some of the early disci- 
ples, ' ' Saul, Saul, why persecute thou me ? ' ' 

But did not Christ include in the phrase, "my 
brethren/ ' more than his undoubted followers? 
did he not designate by it all men? Those that 
may differ on this point still agree on some fun- 
damental facts. They alike hold that God made 
man in his own image, and that, on the ground 
of spiritual likeness, man was in the beginning 
God's child. But since man by sin lost his spirit- 
ual likeness to God and his fellowship with him, 
he imperatively needs to be created anew by the 
Spirit. By this re-creation the sinner is restored 
to right relation to God, to likeness to God, to 
fellowship with God, to the glad recogni- 
tion that God is his Father and the joyful 
consciousness that he is God's child. On 
the basis of creation man is a child of God, by 
his re-creation in Christ Jesus he is brought to see 
this, and to act in conformity to it. Jesus taught 
Nicodemus that when he should be born from 
above by the Spirit he then could see the kingdom 
of God; so a sinner by a spiritual rebirth or re- 
creation comes to see or apprehend that God is 
his Father and that he is God's child. But 
whether he apprehends it or not the fact remains 
that by creation man was made God's child and 
Christ 's brother. If this be true, then the words 
of Christ, "my brethren," include not only regen- 
erated and saved souls but all men. 

This conclusion is greatly strengthened by the 
fact that Jesus claimed to be both the Son of God 

[30] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

and the Son of man; identified with God on the 
one hand and with man on the other. In Matt. 
25, when proclaiming the general judgment, he 
asserts that he, "the Son of man," is to be the 
judge of all men. When in conflict with the Phar- 
isees, John 5, he made the same claim that he was 
to be the judge of all, and that his authority to 
execute judgment is based on the fact that "he 
is the Son of man. ' ' Having the nature of men, 
and being thereby identified with them, he is fitted 
to be their judge. It is in announcing his judg- 
ment of all men that he uses the phrase, "my 
brethren/ ' making it strongly probable that he 
included in it every individual of our race. 

If by "my brethren' ' the disciples of Christ are 
alone meant, then if a man has compassion on a 
heathen, or on one depraved and vile in a Chris- 
tian land, and helps him when in distress, his act 
of mercy cannot be adjudged as done to Christ, 
although it may be an act of greater charity, of 
profounder self-abnegation than if it had been 
expended on a lovable Christian. It may have 
required the very highest possible expression of 
love, — love to an enemy. To limit Christ's words, 
"my brethren,' ' to his followers would exclude the 
Good Samaritan from the blessing of having done 
his compassionate work to the Lord. Nor can 
we forget that Jesus himself was most deeply 
touched with the condition of the godless; his 
own countrymen, wandering from God without 
any true and competent teachers, aroused his 
deepest sympathy. It was apostate Jerusalem 

[31] 



Science and Prayer 

that broke up the fountain of his tears; a lost 
world wrung out his heart's blood in Gethsemane ; 
and did he by the phrase, "my brethren," exclude 
all, who, like him, weep over, and toil to save, the 
lost, from the ineffable blessing of being assured 
that they have done it unto him? Shall Judson's 
years of sympathetic toil, before even one idolater 
savingly received his message, be regarded as not 
done to Christ, while what he thereafter did to 
his saved brother must be so regarded? Is it 
not more reasonable to place in the category of 
Christ's brethren all that wear the human form, 
and conclude that he regards whatever good we 
may do to mortal man as done to him? 

Growing out of this, how mighty is the motive 
to treat courteously, kindly, justly, yea more, to 
love, and to sympathize with, even the least, the 
most ignorant, the most depraved of our fellow 
men. Whatever we do to any one of them, we 
do to the eternal Lord of us all. How this match- 
less teaching of Jesus exalts man as such ! How 
inconceivably sacred it reveals man's person 
to be! 

Now, if we make no mistake, the fact so clearly 
taught in the Scriptures that Christ through his 
sympathy and incarnation is identified with our 
race, solves in a reasonable, natural way some 
of the profoundest facts connected with our 
redemption. 

First, Christ's suffering, since he was sinless, 
has always been a baffling mystery. On the sur- 
face of things, so far as our observation and 

[32] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

experience extend, sin and suffering are always 
indissolubly yoked together. Where men are most 
intensely selfish and corrupt, where they most 
unconstrainedly indulge their bodily appetites and 
passions, and, regardless of the rights and happi- 
ness of others, seek their ambitious ends, there, 
other things being equal, is the greatest suffering. 
"Where there is most of purity, the largest benev- 
olence, where men most generally seek the highest 
good and greatest happiness of one another, there 
is the profoundest peace and the most exultant 
joy. 

But while such general statements are unques- 
tionably true, they make no distinction between 
physical and mental distress, between aching 
nerves and the anguish of the soul. There is, to 
say the least, bodily suffering where there is no 
sin. So far as we know, beasts do not and cannot 
sin, but they suffer physically. They fight and 
tear each other with tooth and claw, and devour 
each other. Men maim and slay them. Outside 
of their cruel internecine strifes, man inflicts upon 
them their greatest distresses. Nor is their suf- 
fering wholly physical ; they also suffer through 
fear. Affrighted they flee at the approach of their 
enemies, whether they be stronger beasts or un- 
pitying men. If they suffer in mind anything 
more than fear, we cannot ascertain it. At all 
events, apart from sin, here is suffering, whose 
metes and bounds we cannot very clearly discern. 

Moreover, infants suffer. To be sure they are 
bound up with our sinful race. To them, by the 

[33] 



Science and Prayer 

inexorable law of heredity, is imparted the taint 
of, and the tendency to, sin. But they have not 
voluntarily transgressed any law. And while they 
are unlike God, they are not responsible for it. 
They have no guilt, yet they suffer. Like animals 
they have both physical distress and fear, and 
sometimes grieve on account of neglect. Beyond 
this we cannot trace their suffering. 

Frankly and fully taking into account these 
incontrovertible facts in reference to the suffer- 
ing of sinless beasts and guiltless infants, we will 
now examine, as thoroughly as we can, the vast 
and difficult subject of the sufferings of the spot- 
less Christ. 

We first naturally turn to his temptations or 
trials arising from poverty, hunger, thirst and 
weariness, from the artfully seductive suggestions 
of the devil, from ambition, from unjust and cruel 
usage, and from the bitter taunts of his insolent 
foes. He was, says the author of the epistle to 
the Hebrews, "one that hath been in all points 
tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 
4:15.) "For in that he himself hath suffered 
being tempted, he is able to succor them that are 
tempted." (2:18.) 

To these ordinary trials of Jesus, we must add 
the manifold woes and distresses of men, taken 
up by him through sympathy into his perfect mind 
and heart. While we, on account of the deaden- 
ing by sin of our moral sensibilities, can, at the 
best but partially feel the miseries of others, he, 
the immaculate Christ, through sympathy felt 

[34] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

them in all their fulness and keenness. With this 
fact in mind let us reverently look in upon the 
mystery of Christ's agony in Gethsemane. 

The first thing that arrests our attention is that 
his suffering was not physical, except so far as 
his body suffered through its vital connection with 
his mind. No hard hand of violence had yet been 
laid upon him. Toward midnight, he went to the 
garden or park with the eleven. As he entered 
it, he felt within his soul the mysterious, rising, 
surging tides of woe. When in great mental dis- 
tress, men often desire to be alone, or with those 
with whom they are in closest intimacy. Jesus 
therefore said to his disciples, ' i Sit ye here, while 
I go yonder and pray. ' ' Already his distress was 
so acute that he felt that he could be relieved only 
by pouring his bursting heart into the infinite, 
compassionate heart of his Father. But also 
craving human sympathy, he chose three disciples, 
in whom he probably most confided, to go with 
him farther into the garden, where they might 
be beyond ear- shot of the rest. As they walked 
on these disciples saw, even in the moonlight, that 
the face of their Lord was clouded with inexpres- 
sible sadness, that his eyes betokened strange 
amazement, and that he was sorely troubled. He 
evidently marked their anxious solicitude for him 
and, in explanation of the woeful expression of 
his face, said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, 
even unto death.' ' Then longing for human sym- 
pathy on the one hand and for divine help on the 
other, he said to the three disciples, "Abide ye 

[35] 



Science and Prayer 

here and watch with me;" then he "went forward 
a little," and falling on his face, prayed, "My 
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away 
from me : nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou 
wilt." He thus poured out his soul three times, 
returning, at the close of both the first and second 
agonizing petitions to the three disciples, to whom 
he appealed for sympathy. His agony of spirit 
was unprecedented, marvelous, matchless. His 
body betokened it. As he prayed, Luke says, "his 
sweat became as it were great drops of blood, 
falling down upon the ground." 

How can we account for such excruciating suf- 
fering of soul in the spotless Son of God? Some 
have taken the superficial ground that he shrank 
with unutterable horror from death on a Eoman 
cross; that in view of it he agonized in prayer, 
shed bitter tears and sweat blood. There is not, 
however, a scintilla of evidence in the Gospels that 
he ever feared mere physical death. Such a view 
makes a coward of him, makes him in sturdy 
manhood less than hosts even of his weakest dis- 
ciples, who, out of fidelity to him, have endured 
deaths more painful than that of the cross, with- 
out complaint or even a tremor, yea more, some- 
times with songs of triumph on their lips. Such 
a baseless, unworthy view of our Lord need not 
further detain us. 

Moreover, in explanation of Jesus' agony in the 
garden conscience is of course excluded. When, 
with an unclouded mind, a wicked man approaches 
death, his past life, deeply stained by sin, stands 

[36] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

vividly before him. Conscience wakes from its 
torpor and stings him; remorse bites him. He 
begins to feel the gnawings of the worm that dies 
not, the withering touch of the unquenchable fire. 
But Jesus was sinless. He never prayed for for- 
giveness, because he did not need it. He claimed 
that he always did what pleased the Father. He 
had no regret for any thought that he had ever 
cherished, for any word that he had ever spoken, 
nor for any deed that he had ever done. He 
looked back over a life of wonderful beneficence. 
He had opened blind eyes, unstopped deaf ears, 
loosed dumb tongues, straightened crippled limbs, 
cleansed loathed lepers, cast out demons, raised 
the dead, dried the tears of mourners, and 
preached to the neglected and despised poor the 
good news of God's love to all men, even to the 
meanest of them. Yet, while knowing his absolute 
integrity, and having the unmistakable approval 
of his conscience and of his Father, his suffering 
in Gethsemane was so great, that no finite intellect 
can fathom it. The only possible solution of it, 
it seems to me, is found in Christ 's identification 
with our race. His sympathy with us was so pro- 
found and so absolutely perfect that he felt our 
sharpest distresses as though they were his own. 
The culmination of his suffering in Gethsemane 
was death. He said, "My soul is exceeding sor- 
rowful, even unto death. ' ' But what did he mean 
by death? 

In whatever order of being death occurs, we 
find that it is a separation. When a plant dies, 

[37] 



Science and Prayer 

what we call its life, known only by its manifes- 
tation, is separated from the root, stalk and leaf, 
which consequently wither and decay. When an 
animal dies life is separated from its flesh, blood 
and bones, which then soon crumble to dust. In 
the same way man as animal dies ; but he is both 
material and spiritual, has both body and soul; 
is linked on the one hand to the beasts that perish, 
and on the other hand to God. As spirit he is 
made to live in fellowship with God. But when 
he sins his union with God ceases. He is sepa- 
rated from him, and that separation is spiritual 
death, death in its essence ; and that death is the 
penalty of sin. When, therefore, Christ declared 
that he was sorrowful even unto death, he spoke 
of spiritual death, sorrowful even unto separation 
from God; sorrowful because through his divine 
sympathy he began to feel the awfulness of that 
separation; began to know by experience the 
fearful misery of the transgressor, suffering 
the penalty due to sin. Back from such an ex- 
perience he shrank with " strong crying and 
tears," and in inconceivable agony prayed that 
that cup, if it were possible, might pass away 
from him. 

But Gethsemane and the cross are halves of one 
sphere. Christ 's experience in the garden reaches 
its climax on Calvary. In the one we have his 
sorrow even unto death, unto separation from 
God, on the other his appalling cry, "My God, 
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Did God 
forsake him? He never forsakes any soul that 

[38] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

sincerely seeks him, however imperfect and un- 
worthy that soul may be. Much less did he for- 
sake his only begotten Son, who was one with 
him and always perfectly did his will. How then 
shall we interpret this amazing, despairing cry of 
Christ? 

He was our elder brother; he had our nature 
and our experiences, yet without sin. And he had 
also entered into a profounder and more intimate 
union with mankind than most Christian thinkers 
of the ages have ever seemed to conceive. His 
sympathy with men, lost in sin, was perfect. His 
heart was the infinite heart of God. He was capa- 
ble of taking up into it all the woes of our sinful 
race. And in his unbounded compassion he did 
not fail to enter fully into the awful experience 
of those, made to live in fellowship with God, who 
yet were separated from him by their transgres- 
sions. Through his divine sympathy with them, 
he felt within his own soul all their woe. And 
when on his cross he cried, "My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me?" we hear in those 
awful words the wail of a lost race. 

Now, the only possible sense in which the sin- 
less Christ could bear the sins of men is that he 
voluntarily bore the penalty justly due to sin. 
And this penalty was not laid upon him from 
without. We have no evidence of any mechanical 
arrangement between the persons of the triune 
God, that one should mete out the penalty of sin, 
and that another, called the second person of the 
Trinity, should receive it. On the contrary, in 

[39] 



Science and Prayer 

the most natural manner, as the spontaneous out- 
flow of his love for men and of his identifying 
sympathy with them, he fully felt in himself, on 
their behalf, the awful reality of their spiritual 
death. 

This view furnishes the most reasonable ex- 
planation of the atonement. Christ, by his sym- 
pathetic suffering, revealed, as he could have done 
in no other way, the depth and tenderness of the 
divine love for sinful men. On the other hand, 
his soul-suffering even unto death, flowing from 
his perfect sympathy with lost men, proclaims 
in tones clear and terrible the awfulness and inef- 
fable hatefulness of sin. It cost the sympathetic, 
sinless Son of God the pangs of spiritual death. 
All the hollow depths of hell seem to resound in 
Christ's appalling cry on the cross, "My God, 
my God, why hast thou forsaken me!" Separa- 
tion from God — all that there is, or can be, in 
perdition is wrapped up in that. Forsaken of 
God — hell is only that "writ large." And that 
is the bitter fruit of sin. 

The intensity of Christ's suffering for us 
through sympathy is confirmed by modern scien- 
tific investigation, which has shown that Christ 
probably died not from the tortures of the cross 
but from the violence of emotion, that literally 
ruptured the walls of his heart and filled the peri- 
cardium with blood. This theory alone explains 
the extravasated blood, separated into red clot and 
watery serum, that poured from his side when 
pierced with a spear. Moreover this is consonant 

[40] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

with the suddenness of his death, which at the time 
puzzled and amazed the Eoman authorities. Those 
crucified usually lived from twelve hours to two 
or three days, but Christ died in six hours. And 
when death came he was still physically strong, 
as is shown by his loud cry just before he bowed 
his head and gave up the ghost. He died not from 
pain of body, but from anguish of spirit. Through 
sympathy he took the agony of a sinful world 
up into his soul. In the language of prophecy 
he could say, "The reproaches of them that re- 
proach thee are fallen on me," "Beproach hath 
broken my heart." (Ps. 69:9, 20.) (See Dr. 
Stroud's treatise, "On the Physical Cause of the 
Death of Christ,' ' also Hanna's "The Life of our 
Lord." V. p. 323 and Appendix.) 

It may be objected that this view of Christ's 
atonement robs it of one of its essential elements ; 
that the Scriptures represent him as suffering 
for us or on our behalf ; that one may suffer sym- 
pathetically with another without suffering for 
him. True, the Bible does clearly teach that 
Christ suffered for us, yea more, that he suffered 
vicariously for us. But cannot one at the same 
time suffer both with and for another? If one 
suffers with another in distress, does not that fact 
cheer and help him who is in distress ? Does not 
suffering with another naturally culminate in suf- 
fering for another! 

A few years ago, a man strolling along the shore 
of Lake Michigan, at Jackson Park, Chicago, went 
into the lake for a bath. He soon began to strug- 

[41] 



Science and Prayer 

gle in the water and lustily called for help. A 
crowd hurriedly gathered on the beach, but no 
one dared to go into those treacherous waters. 
The man sank, but just as he rose again to the 
surface, a student of the university came on the 
run to the rescue. He quickly flung away hat, 
coat and shoes, and boldly plunging in, swam 
straight to the drowning stranger. The large 
company on the shore was as still as a stone. The 
anxiety was intense lest the man now frantically 
struggling for his life should instinctively grasp 
his would-be deliverer and both should go down 
to death beneath the waves. But the student cau- 
tiously kept the half -drowned man at arm's length, 
and slowly brought him on toward the shore. 
The moment that the rescuer and the rescued 
stood upright in shallow water, the crowd that 
had waited seemingly an age in breathless silence, 
broke out into glad huzzas that made the welkin 
ring, and in their joyful excitement threw their 
caps, hats and coats high up into the air. Why? 
They had simply witnessed an act of vicarious 
suffering. One man had sympathized with another, 
whose life was in imminent peril, and out of sym- 
pathy for him had exposed himself to the same 
peril. His sympathy with him expressed itself in 
an heroic deed for him. He voluntarily thrust 
himself into the jaws of death that he might 
snatch his fellow man from them. 

A man on a certain Board of Trade was down- 
cast and almost in despair because he could not 
meet his note of $25,000 in the bank, which must 

[42] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

be paid by two o'clock in the afternoon or bis 
credit would be utterly destroyed. A member of 
the Board, whose business standing was flawless, 
deeply sympathizing with his brother trader, 
lifted the burden off from him by putting his name 
upon the despairing man's paper. He took his 
place, suffered in his stead, paid his debt, and 
saved him from financial ruin. Here again sym- 
pathizing with led to doing for. 

It is always so, where sympathy is genuine. 
Jesus in his peerless parable says, that the Samar- 
itan, when he came to the unfortunate Jew, who 
had been robbed, stripped and beaten into insen- 
sibility, had compassion on him, sympathized with 
him, and that sympathy at once expressed itself 
in outward and helpful act on behalf of the suf- 
ferer. So the Chief of good Samaritans sympa- 
thized, suffered with us, who had been robbed and 
deeply wounded by sin, and his divine sympathy 
so identified him with us that he felt within him- 
self in all its dread reality the penalty justly due 
to our sin. He sympathized with us and hence 
died for us. 

But the notion that God ever suffers, some 
scholarly thinkers reject with apparent horror. 
In their view suffering is an attribute of imper- 
fection, is either an accompaniment of immaturity, 
like the growing pains of children, or the direct 
effect of personal sin, and so cannot be predicated 
of God. 

Of course God is neither immature nor sinful, 
nor does he suffer from such causes. But the suf- 

[43] 



Science and Prayer 

fering that we attribute to him, flows from his 
absolute perfection; suffering that is the inevi- 
table concomitant of his unspeakable love for, and 
boundless sympathy with, those that are in dis- 
tress. That God must thus suffer we infer from 
the universal experience and observation of men. 
One who can look without pity and pain on the 
sufferings of others, is always unhesitatingly pro- 
nounced heartless. Is God as unfeeling as the 
worst of our race? Those who feel most acutely 
the manifold miseries of men and hasten to alle- 
viate them, are universally regarded as the very 
noblest of the earth. Suffering that arises from 
our sympathy with those in distress is not a proof 
of imperfection of character, but rather of char- 
acter reaching up toward that of God himself. 
In Christ, in whom was the Godhead bodily, we 
have the highest known example of sympathetic 
suffering, and his suffering instead of proving 
him imperfect, exalted him to the throne of the 
universe. Having, through sympathy with lost 
men, suffered, on their behalf, the pangs of spirit- 
ual death, ' ' God highly exalted him, and gave unto 
him the name which is above every name. ' ' (Phil. 
2:9.) 

But some, who emphatically affirm that suffer- 
ing is utterly incompatible with any true concep- 
tion of God, still hold to the deity of Christ, and 
admit of course, as every intelligent Christian 
man must, that he suffered and suffered for us. 
But to steer clear of the notion of a suffering God, 
they fall back on the two natures of Christ, the 

[44] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

divine and the human. To Christ's human nature 
they ascribe his suffering, while the divine na- 
ture, without the slightest touch of pain or com- 
passion, holds up the human so that it can drink 
the cup of woe to the dregs and perfect the work 
of atonement for the sinner. All this is well and 
devoutly meant, and should be so considered. 
But in all that Christ said and did, as it is reported 
in the New Testament, we have no hint that the 
human and divine natures in him acted thus sep- 
arately and independently. There is no evidence 
that he had two consciousnesses, the human and 
the divine. According to the evangelists the one 
indivisible Christ acted, said this and that, did 
this and that. Moreover, the apostles, who, 
guided by the Spirit, still further unfolded and 
interpreted the gospel for us, do not sever the 
personality of Christ so that the human and divine 
in him stand over against each other. That both 
the Gospels and Epistles teach the undivided per- 
sonality of Jesus is sustained by the ripest modern 
scholarship. 

That God, through sympathy with his people, 
suffers, is strongly re-enforced by many declara- 
tions of the Old Testament, scattered from Gen- 
esis to Zechariah. When, before the flood, the 
race became very corrupt, it " grieved' ' Jehovah 
"at his heart." (Gen. 6:6.) He saw the affliction 
of his people in Egypt, heard their cry, knew their 
sorrows and came down to deliver them. (Ex. 3: 
7-8. ) In the time of the Judges, Jehovah 's i i soul 
was grieved for the misery of Israel." (Judges 

[45] 



Science and Prayer 

10:16.) In Isaiah (63:9) it is declared that Je- 
hovah "was afflicted in all his people's affliction. ,, 
Jehovah's cry over Ephraim, through the lips of 
Hosea (11: 8), ending in the words, "My heart is 
turned within me, my compassions are kindled 
together,' \ shows how deeply his soul was pained 
on account of Israel's incorrigible rebellion 
against him. And we learn from Zechariah that 
the Lord was identified with his ancient people, 
' i He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his, ' ' 
Jehovah's "eye." (Zech. 2:8.) No wonder that 
George Adam Smith in his exposition of Isaiah 
devotes an entire chapter to "The Passion of 
God." 

But some say these are merely anthropo- 
morphisms. Most of the representations of God 
in the Bible are. "Our Father, who art in 
heaven" is one; "The Lord is my shepherd" is 
another; but the real question is What do these 
anthropomorphisms mean? What do they tell us 
about God ? Do they misrepresent him 1 If Christ 
does not misrepresent him then they do not. The 
same Jehovah that cried over his people in Baby- 
lon through the lips of his prophet, 

"Like a woman in travail I gasp, 
Pant and palpitate together," 

(Smith's Isaiah, Vol. II, p. 134) 

wept over Jerusalem, and agonized over a world 
in Gethsemane. 

And the crowning consideration on this point 
is that no man, during all the ages, ever longed 

[46] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

for an unsympathetic, passionless God. From 
such an unfeeling God, men universally recoil. 
Being infinite in holiness and power they tremble 
in his presence, but cannot love him. With tricky, 
sinful Jacob they cry, ' ' Jehovah is in this place. ' ' 
"How dreadful is this place !" A God who fills 
men with cowering fear and shuddering dread, 
who cannot sympathize or suffer with them in 
their deep distress, even though their woes are 
but the just retribution for their sins, cannot be 
the true God. Although some men under the old 
dispensation caught clear glimpses of Jehovah 
and of his love and sympathy, not till Christ came 
did "the Sun of righteousness arise with healing 
in its wings. ,, (Mai. 4:2.) "God so loved the 
world that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth on him should not perish but 
have eternal life, ' ' is the sweetest song ever heard 
on earth. The loving, sympathetic God, the true 
God, was in Christ. What Christ did, he did. 
What Christ suffered, he suffered. Christ, God 
in Christ, took up into his heart of infinite ten- 
derness all our sorrows, and felt them with 
us even unto death. To him men, even when 
half awake to spiritual realities, are irresistibly 
drawn. 

During Christ's earthly ministry, Luke tells us 
(15:1) that publicans and sinners kept coming 
to him to hear him. They knew that he abhorred 
their sins, but in spite of that they were attracted 
to his person and loved to hear his words. They 
did not know that he was God in their own flesh, 

[47] 



Science and Prayer 

but they felt that they stood in the presence of 
one who understood them and whose sympathy 
overflowed to them; so in spite of the protests 
of the Pharisees, the acknowledged leaders of the 
people, they kept coming to Jesus. Neither their 
sins nor their rulers could keep them away from 
him. The true, sympathetic God allures and sat- 
isfies men. The supreme need of the world is to 
know him. 

But can a suffering Saviour be happy? men 
ask. Pain or suffering is not in itself an evil but 
a beneficent agent for the good of men. It is often 
a kindly warning against sinful excesses, which, 
if persisted in, bring men prematurely to death. 
It is also a moral discipline by which men are 
unfolded into virtue. In suffering one learns how 
to let patience have her perfect work, that he may 
reach that state of perfection in which he shall 
lack nothing. Even Christ learned by suffering 
how to be our "merciful and faithful high priest.' ' 
It is also an expression of our heavenly Father's 
love, and when endured with resignation to the 
divine will brings forth in us "the fruit of right- 
eousness. ' ' To begin at the lowest point, physical 
suffering and happiness are not incompatible. 
Christian invalids, along whose quivering nerves 
pain runs with blistering feet, often have deep 
down in their hearts the peace of God that passes 
all understanding. The peace and even joy of 
the martyrs, when enduring the most excruciating 
physical tortures, have been not only unruffled but 
enhanced. Moreover, even mental suffering has 

[48] 



The Atonement through Sympathy 

been unable to drive happiness from the soul that 
unwaveringly trusts in God. Innumerable times 
Christian men, smarting under baseless slander, 

"Whose edge is sharper than the sword, whose tongue 
Outvenoms all the worms of Nile," 

(Cymbeline III, Sc. 4.) 

have still been serene and happy. Now the most 
exquisite of all suffering is that which flows from 
our sympathy with those in distress, and such suf- 
ferers, by common consent, are the happiest of 
mortals. And if this be true in the case of 
imperfect men, it is also unquestionably true in 
the case of God. Our divine Lord who suffers 
sympathetically with us is at the same time filled 
with unfathomable peace and happiness unalloyed. 
These objections answered, this then is the sum 
of our contention : Christ, on account of what he 
is and did, made it possible for every man to be 
reconciled to God. "God was in Christ, recon- 
ciling the world unto himself. ' ' Through his infi- 
nite love, boundless sympathy and incarnation he 
identified himself with our race; took up into 
himself all our distresses and felt in all its fulness 
and sharpness our chief woe, separation from God 
on account of our voluntary transgression. The 
sinless Saviour thus endured with us and for us 
death, the penalty of sin, bore it in his own body 
on the tree, satisfied in himself every demand of 
his own law on the sinner, and exhibited, as he 
could have done in no other way, the limitless love 
of God to sinful men, and the awfulness and un- 

[49] 



Science and Prayer 

speakable hatefulness of sin. And all this — and 
here is the emphasis — as the natural, spontaneous 
outflow of his love for us and his unfathomable, 
tender sympathy with us. 



[50] 



THE FUNDAMENTAL MOEAL ATTRIBUTE 
OF GOD 



THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL ATTRIBUTE 
OF GOD 

To make my discussion as clear as possible, I 
wish to notice at the start that by "fundamental" 
I do not mean that one attribute of God is any 
more necessary to his perfection than another. 
If we should strip him of any one of his attributes, 
he would no longer be God. The word "fundamen- 
tal" refers solely to our logical conception of 
God's moral attributes. By any just analysis of 
those attributes, which one in our thinking under- 
lies all the rest? Out from which one must all the 
other of his moral attributes spring, so that we 
cannot conceive of their existence apart from it? 

I trust that I am fully aware of the difficulty 
and profundity of this subject. I fear that it may 
be possible for those who may read this chapter 
truthfully to say to me, "you have nothing to 
draw with and the well is deep." I certainly 
hardly expect, in a brief essay, to clear the ground 
of deeply-rooted theological doctrine; but I wish 
with becoming modesty, so far as I can attain to 
that grace, to present tentatively a view which 
at least satisfies me better than the diverse views 
hitherto held on this subject by great and justly 
honored theologians. 

Some of them have made holiness the funda- 
mental attribute of God, and by convincing logic 

[53] 



Science and Prayer 

have shown how all the rest of his moral attributes 
flow out of it, or are based upon it, and are con- 
trolled and modified by it. Others have contended 
that love is the fundamental attribute and that 
holiness is only an essential quality of love ; God's 
love is a holy love. But one instinctively feels that 
this reasoning is somewhat strained; and a sus- 
picion creeps into the mind that it is resorted to 
to bolster up a preconceived theory. Some theo- 
logians of our time have for years vigorously 
maintained that holiness is the fundamental attri- 
bute of God, and then have shifted their position, 
abandoning all their cogent arguments, and have 
contended with new-born zeal that love is the fun- 
damental attribute. And this swinging from one 
extremity of the arc to the other, they have her- 
alded as progress. But it is barely possible that 
neither view is right, and that lying back of holi- 
ness and love there is an attribute which is funda- 
mental to both of them. And we venture to sug- 
gest that that attribute is life. 

We do not mean by life simply being, existence, 
continuity of existence, but a distinctive spiritual 
life, a life that inevitably blossoms into holiness 
and love. Without this life God might have being, 
intellectuality, will, but without it he could have 
neither holiness, nor love, nor any other moral 
attribute. This I trust will be made reasonably 
clear at a later stage of our argument. 

In order that we may see that life, as we have 
defined it, is a moral attribute, we must distin- 
guish the different classes of God's attributes. 

[54] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

First, there are attributes which belong simply 
to the being of God — are simply inherent in being 
as such; sometimes unhappily they have been 
called the mechanical attributes; these are God's 
eternalness, omnipresence, omniscience, and om- 
nipotence. We can conceive of these attributes 
entirely apart from any moral quality. In other 
words there might be eternalness, omnipresence, 
omniscience, omnipotence not only not moral, but 
all save the first malignant. Happily we know 
from the revelation of God to us that the every- 
where-present One is holy, that holy eyes see all 
things, and that his omnipotence is wielded in 
behalf of righteousness, — but these attributes 
which pertain simply to his being are not neces- 
sarily moral. 

Whereas, his life, — his distinctively spiritual 
life, life distinguished from mere being, from in- 
tellect, from will, — and also holiness, and love, 
which, we think, are based 'upon it, are moral 
attributes; and our inquiry is which of these 
moral attributes is fundamental? 

We need to make one more classification. There 
are some attributes that are passive, and some 
that are active. This discrimination must be made 
even among the attributes which belong simply 
to God's being as such. Omnipresence is clearly 
a passive attribute, while omniscience is neces- 
sarily active. To see requires attention, and 
attention presupposes the action of the will. 
While omnipotence, from different points of view, 
is both passive and active. Potential omnipo- 

[55] 



Science and Prayer 

tence, or omnipotence viewed simply as a posses- 
sion, is passive ; omnipotence wielded is of course 
active. 

Now the moral attributes of God are divided 
into the same classes. Life, as we have denned 
it, partakes of both the passive and active. Pas- 
sively it indicates a state or condition; but life 
always struggles to express itself ; and the spirit- 
ual life of God expresses itself in holiness, love, 
mercy, etc. The passive unfolds itself, and so far 
it is an active attribute. Holiness also on one side 
is passive ; but it too expresses itself in love and 
justice. But love, justice, and mercy are among 
the active moral attributes. 

We have now sufficiently denned and differenti- 
ated the attribute which we think is the funda- 
mental, moral attribute of God. Talking with a 
learned friend, he raised the question as to 
whether life is an attribute of God at all. But 
an attribute of any object is one of its essential 
qualities. All the essential qualities of an object, 
so far as we can apprehend them, put into a dec- 
laration concerning that object, or affirmed of it, 
constitute a definition of it. Any attempted defi- 
nition of God that should leave out his distinctive 
moral or spiritual life would be so manifestly 
defective that a tyro in theology would reject it. 
It is then an attribute, an essential quality of God 
as God is revealed to us ; it is a moral attribute ; 
it is fundamental to all other moral attributes, — 
without it they could not be ; the existence of each 
one of them implies its existence. 

[56] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

From the life of God as now defined his other 
moral attributes are naturally and readily de- 
duced. Not to stop to test this statement in refer- 
ence to them all, let us test it in reference to holi- 
ness and love. As to holiness, the life of which 
we speak is characterized by it. To divest the 
spiritual life of God of holiness would divest it 
of one of its essential qualities. The spiritual life 
of God apart from holiness is unthinkable. Still 
holiness is only an essential quality of it. We 
do not naturally say live holiness, but a holy life. 
Holiness is the expression of the innermost nature 
of this life. 

But God's spiritual, holy life also expresses 
itself in love. But in our thought we must differ- 
entiate love from emotion. Emotion accompanies 
love, but it is not love itself. Love in its last 
analysis is choice or preference. Since God's life 
is holy he is impelled by his moral nature to 
choose, to prefer, to love that which is holy. So 
among all the objects of his creation on this earth 
he prefers, loves men. He loves them because they 
are made in his own image. That image has been 
marred and defaced by sin; still God sees that 
it may be perfectly retraced in the souls of men, 
and restored to its pristine purity; on that ac- 
count he so loved men that he gave his only 
begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish but have everlasting life. He 
prefers, loves, men above trees or beasts since he 
sees the possibility of their becoming as pure as 
he himself is pure. But the same holy life that 

[57] 



Science and Prayer 

leads him to prefer, to love men because made 
in his image and capable of becoming in moral 
purity like himself, leads him also to loath and 
hate sin by which his image has been polluted and 
defaced . Love, preference for that which is good, 
and hatred for that which is evil have the same 
root; they both spring from the same holy life 
of God. His holy life also impels him to love his 
children with a special love, to prefer them to 
those who are not his children by virtue of the 
new birth by his Spirit. It leads him to prefer 
the angels, those seraphic spirits that have never 
sinned, to devils ; it leads him to prefer, love, his 
own immaculate character, his stainless glory 
above all. There is in this no selfishness ; having 
a holy life as the fundamental moral attribute of 
his being, he is under a moral necessity of prefer- 
ring, loving that which is supremely perfect. And 
this explains why he made his own glory his 
supreme end in creation. An aged disciple, in a 
cottage of Northern England, said 'It sets him 
well to commend himself'; it sets, it becomes him 
well to commend himself. He loves, prefers him- 
self ; he cannot do otherwise since he is the abso- 
lute standard of holiness in the whole universe. 

Now having noted that holiness and love both 
flow from the spiritual life of God, let us see what 
the Scriptures suggest as to his fundamental 
moral attribute. 

We turn to the Old Testament and find in sev- 
eral passages that God is distinctively called the 
"living God." He was thus at times contrasted 

[58] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

with idols that were declared to be dead. (Josh. 
3 : 10 ; 2 Kings 19 : 4, 16 ; cf . 1 Thess. 1:9.) But 
the contrast was made by that essential attribute 
which preeminently distinguished him from insen- 
sate, inert idols. The loving God; the holy God 
would have connoted a striking contrast ; but the 
living God connoted a contrast still more radical 
and striking. 

Full forty times we have record of oaths rev- 
erently made by men all along the entire period 
of the development of Israel's history, and in 
every instance the oath is by God or Jehovah that 
liveth. But his love, mercy, longsuffering, for- 
giveness, holiness had all been revealed; but no 
recorded oath takes up into its expression one of 
those attributes, but it does take up into itself the 
attribute of life and that only. Naturally that 
which was fundamental in the character of God 
would find expression in the solemn, reverent 
oath. 

Moreover, at least nine times we have the rec- 
ord of the oath by which God, Jehovah, swore by 
himself; and in no instance did he swear by his 
holiness or his love, but always by his life; "As 
I live" is the expression in every case. When he 
thus took his oath, a recent authority says that 
he evidently swore by the inmost moral attribute 
of his being. 

But in the ever-unfolding revelation of God, 
Christ at last, in the fulness of time, came ; Christ 
who was in the beginning, in eternity, with God 
and was God ; Christ, who is the brightness of the 

[59] 



Science and Prayer 

Father's glory, and the express image of his per- 
son; Christ in whom dwells all the fulness of the 
Godhead bodily. In him we can learn more of 
what God is than from all other sources. And 
the disciple that leaned on Jesus' bosom, 
and looked down deeper into the depths 
of his divine nature than any other fol- 
lower of his, says "in him was life, and the 
life was the light of men." Neither the Master, 
nor any of his disciples, can give light to others 
unless he first has life, and no life gives light 
except a holy life. To my own mind, in such a 
characterization of his Lord, John seized upon the 
fundamental moral attribute of his being, and 
that attribute in him, who is the express image 
of God the Father, is life. 

This representation made by the disciple whom 
Jesus loved, is sustained by the words of Jesus 
himself. Among the reasons that he gave why 
' * all men should honor the Son even as they honor 
the Father," we find this: "For as the Father 
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son 
to have life in himself.' ' He did not say love, 
or holiness but life. What of homage is due to the 
Father is due also to the Son because he has in 
himself the very life of the Father. "Was he not 
here speaking of the innermost attribute both of 
the Father and of himself? In such a connection, 
where he mentions only one attribute of the 
Father and himself would he have mentioned any 
attribute but the fundamental one? And just 
before Gethsemane and the cross, he said to his 

[60] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

sorrowing and bewildered disciples, as they were 
asking after the way to the Father, I am the way 
to him ; I am the truth and reveal to you the fact 
that you can have fellowship with him through 
me; and I am the life; the very life of God is 
mine ; I will impart it to you. Jesus had before 
said that he quickened, made alive, whom he 
would. And when one possesses that life, he will 
be in spiritual life one with Christ and the Father. 
In this wonderfully pregnant declaration, "I am 
the way, the truth and the life," "the life" is 
the climax. He in whom we can see as nowhere 
else what God is, announces himself as ' ' the life ' ' ; 
that is the utmost height of his claim. 

Now let us test the truth of our position, that 
life is the fundamental attribute of God, by what 
is wrought in those that are saved. The New 
Testament represents men in their impenitent 
state as dead. But at the same time they are 
alive. "She that liveth in pleasure," says Paul, 
1 ' is dead while she liveth. ' ' Impenitent men are 
physically alive ; in this respect they are like the 
beasts of the field; they are also intellectually 
alive ; capable of originating and executing great 
business enterprises; of wisely solving the pro- 
foundest problems of statesmanship; of pushing 
out into new fields of scientific research; of pro- 
ducing literature that shall live on through many 
generations, stirring, delighting, benefiting all 
who read it ; but at the same time they are spirit- 
ually dead. At the same time they are both like 
and unlike God. Like God they have reason; 

[61] 



Science and Prayer 

like God they have will ; but unlike God they have 
no spiritual, holy life. They are dead in just that 
attribute that corresponds to the innermost moral 
attribute of God. That in which they differ from 
God is so transcendently more vital and important 
than that in which they are like God, that they 
have no fellowship with him. Reason and will may 
be exercised quite outside of that which is moral 
or spiritual, and in the case of impenitent men 
are so exercised ; so that though they reason and 
will they are dead to God; in them there is no 
response to the spiritual life of God; they are 
dead to his fundamental moral attribute. 

Now, only life can impart life. Spontaneous 
generation mooted by Tyndal at Belfast years ago 
was proved to be unscientific. The German scien- 
tists tested it by experimentation. They took 
matter, killed every germ of life in it, and then 
put it in the best possible conditions for sponta- 
neously producing life. But the only response 
was death; and the whole scientific world aban- 
doned the theory of spontaneous generation as 
utterly untenable. As it is in the physical uni- 
verse so is it in the spiritual. Men spiritually 
dead cannot give to themselves spiritual life. 
Wherever and whenever they have tried it, the 
only response to their efforts has been death. 
He, the innermost moral attribute of whose being 
is life, only can impart life. He comes to us in 
Jesus Christ, who said, "I came that they may 
have life, and may have it abundantly, ' ' or, as in 
the margin of the E. V., may "have abundance" 

[62] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

of life. Here we have the primary object for 
which Christ came ; primarily not to give holiness 
or love, bnt to give life. He pours into the very 
part of man's being where death reigns his life, 
and brings man into fellowship with him, whose 
fundamental moral attribute is life. 

We must notice also that the imparting of life 
is in the Scriptures connected with faith. Christ 
said, "He that heareth my word, and believe th 
him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh 
not into judgment, but hath passed out of death 
into life/' But belief, trust unites him who exer- 
cises it with God; brings him into vital fellow- 
ship with God, so that the holy life of God flows 
over into him. Not primarily the holiness or love 
of God is imparted to him, but a holy life. So 
John says, "He that believeth on the Son hath 
eternal life. ' ' Not primarily holiness or love, but 
life and that eternal. Christ said to the Phari- 
sees, "Ye will not come to me, that ye may have 
life." Jesus called himself the bread of life, and 
declared that "The bread of God is that which 
cometh down out of heaven and giveth life unto 
the world." At the close of his gospel John said, 
referring to what he had recorded, "These are 
written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may 
have life in his name. ' ' But we need not multiply 
passages of similar import. It is abundantly clear 
from these that God in Christ came primarily to 
impart life to men, and that in the impartation 
of it men themselves must cooperate with God, 

[63] 



Science and Prayer 

must trust in him, vitally connect themselves with 
him by faith. That which God imparts is mani- 
festly primary, not secondary. 

This view of life reveals to us what the Scrip- 
tures mean by "eternal life. ' y Here are some 
passages that contain this phrase. Matt. 25 : 46. 
The righteous shall go away into eternal life. 
Mk. 10: 17, 30, Good Master, what shall I do that 
I may inherit eternal life? Eeceive in the 
world to come eternal life. Jno. 3 : 15, That who- 
soever believeth may in him have eternal life. 
4 : 36, He that reapeth receiveth wages and gath- 
ereth fruit unto life eternal. 6 : 54, He that eateth 
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life. 
10: 28, 1 give unto them (my sheep) eternal life. 
17 : 2, To them he should give eternal life. Eom. 
2 : 7, God gives i ' to them that by patience in well- 
doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, 
eternal life. ' ' 6 : 23, But the free gift of God is 
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. 1 Tim. 
6 : 12, Lay hold on life eternal. These are only a 
few Scriptures among many in which the phrase 
is used. A phrase so constantly recurring should 
be as clearly as possible understood. In these 
passages eternal life is represented as a gift of 
God bestowed through faith, as the reward of 
obedience, and is an unending, unchangeable 
inheritance. 

It is obvious at a glance that the phrase "eter- 
nal life ' ' does not mean simply immortality, con- 
tinuous, unending existence. Immortality is not 
bestowed upon men through their faith in God; 

[64] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

is not something that we can lay hold of. It 
belongs to man's original constitution. By no act 
of his is it either secured or lost. It is an original, 
essential attribute of man as such. Just as the 
attribute of eternalness belongs to the simple 
being of God, and has in itself no moral quality, 
so the attribute of immortality belongs to the 
original nature of man and possesses in itself no 
moral quality whatsoever. By virtue of it man 
continues to exist forever in weal or woe. But 
eternal life is something secured by man; some- 
thing granted to him by God in Christ. It is to 
our mind evidently the holy life of God, once pos- 
sessed by man, made in God's image, but lost by 
sin, but now restored to him by God in Christ 
through faith. The loss of it entailed upon our 
race untold misery; the restoration of it to all 
who will receive it, brings to them blessing, hap- 
piness, joy greater than any words can express ; 
makes them one with God in his fundamental 
moral attribute. His holy life becomes theirs; 
the peace of God that passes all understanding 
becomes their unfailing, their eternal possession. 
All the ineffable joys and glories of heaven flow 
forth from it. 

Paul, the great apostolic interpreter of the gos- 
pel, is in entire harmony with Jesus and John 
in reference to the fact that life is fundamental 
in the character of the believer. To be sure he 
deals more constantly with righteousness, an 
inevitable expression of the life; but a passage 
in Galatians makes the impartation of life the 

[65] 



Science and Prayer 

basal fact in the salvation of a sinner. In that 
passage the Apostle says, "For if there had been 
a law given which could make alive ;" now we 
expect him to say, making alive, or the imparta- 
tion of life, "would have been of the law." But 
no, in the second, the conditional member of his 
sentence, he uses the term righteousness, which 
designates the expression or counterpart of life. 
Nor does he leave us in doubt as to what he re- 
gards as the source of the life; while it is not 
the law that makes alive, the law is the pedagogue 
that leads men to Christ who can and will make 
them alive. In the same epistle, before he thus 
elaborates this thought, he speaks of his own, 
personal salvation, as wrapped up in the life of 
Christ. By faith he is so identified with Christ 
that on the one hand he is crucified with him, but 
on the other (blessed paradox) he lives as never 
before ; but so perfectly is he identified with his 
Saviour, that his life is Christ living in him. He 
does not give even a hint in reference to holiness 
or love, but the foundation fact in his salvation 
is life ; the very life of Christ is so imparted to 
him that he in Christ and Christ in him live the 
same life. We need not multiply passages from 
PauPs epistles; but when we catch his idea of 
Christ 's life in the believer we do not wonder that 
he directs Timothy to charge those "that are rich 
in this present world" to "lay hold rather on the 
life which is life indeed;" because that life is 
eternal salvation enfolding within itself every 
conceivable excellence and glory ; nor do we won- 

[66] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

der that lie wrote to the Colossians, "when Christ, 
who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall 
ye also with him be manifested in glory. ' ' 

But to this view it is objected that John wrote 
in his first epistle those wonderful words of light 
and power, * ' God is love ; ' ' some, therefore, have 
declared that love is the very substance of God. 
But no one knows what is the substance of the 
human soul, nor even what is the substance of 
matter, and so certainly no one knows what is the 
substance of God. And if John's words should be 
taken as the revelation to us of God's substance, 
that contention would lead us into difficulty, since 
in the same epistle the beloved disciple declares 
that "God is light." In this declaration do we 
have the revelation that light is the substance of 
God? Or are light and love identical! Is it not 
John's way of expressing with weightiest empha- 
sis a vastly important attribute of God? And 
perhaps when men say that love is the very sub- 
stance of God, they are simply giving expression 
to their high appreciation of his love by words of 
intense rhetoric. 

Now, to complete the presentation of our view 
we must not fail to note the corresponding attri- 
butes of the believer and God. When spiritual 
life is imparted to one who is brought by faith 
into touch with Christ, his moral state becomes 
like that of God himself. He has holiness within 
him now, at least in germ. His holiness manifests 
itself in righteousness, which is right acting both 
toward God and men; it manifests itself in jus- 

[67] 



Science and Prayer 

tice which meets the full measure of obligation 
not only to individuals with whom we are bound 
up together in society, but also to society and the 
State ; it leads him to do both his individual and 
corporate duties. 

As the outgrowth of his new life he has love like 
that of God ; it is the same in kind, but of course 
falls short of it in degree. He now loves, chooses, 
prefers what God loves, chooses, prefers. Just 
as God loves, prefers, his own stainless holiness, 
so does the believer prefer God's holiness, and 
begins to strive after it. Just as God loves, espe- 
cially prefers, his children to all other men, so 
the believer begins to love, to prefer them. We 
know that we have passed out of death into life 
because we love, prefer, the brethren. Just as 
God loves, prefers, impenitent men above all other 
living creatures on the earth, save his own chil- 
dren, because they are made in his own image, 
and have full provision made for their salvation 
in the death and life of his Son, so the believer, 
who has passed out of death into life, the very 
life of God, according to his measure and capac- 
ity, also loves, prefers, them. Paul, as soon as 
he became conscious of his new life in Christ, 
preached Jesus to his Jewish brethren at Damas- 
cus that he might save them. He at once began 
to love as God loves, and to hate as God hates. 
And he is but a type of all into whom through 
faith God's life flows. Each one can sing with 
Wesley, 

"Jesus all the day long 
Was my joy and my song :" 

[68] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

but from every such soul, rejoicing on account of 
his new life, there inevitably bursts forth the next 

line, 

"0 that all his salvation might see I" 

Now, we know that we get our conception of 
God's attributes from what we observe in our- 
selves, who are made in the image of God. There 
is within each one of us a sense of justice ; of this 
we are conscious ; a like sense of justice we rightly 
attribute to God ; only in us this sense of justice 
is finite, in God it is infinite; renewed men love 
God and their brethren; so they conclude that 
love is a moral attribute of God ; only while they 
love imperfectly and finitely, he loves perfectly 
and infinitely. And so of all the other moral 
attributes. Now we know beyond the shadow of 
a doubt that in us spiritual life is fundamental 
to holiness and love. No man can have holiness 
and love until the moral life of God is imparted 
to him. And as this is so in us, it is also so in 
God. Back of and beneath his attributes of holi- 
ness and love lies his moral life; and out of it 
holiness and love spring. 

If our position be true, then those theological 
writers, who contend with each other as to whether 
holiness or love is the fundamental moral attri- 
bute of God, might be brought into blissful unity 
by a cordial recognition of the moral life of God 
as his fundamental attribute, the natural, inevi- 
table expression of which is holiness and love, and 
without which neither holiness nor love could 
possibly exist. 

[69] 



Science and Prayer 

Moreover, a common declaration of our day is 
"Christianity is not a system of doctrine, but a 
life." This popular affirmation is of course too 
sweeping; loosely speaking, Christianity is not 
merely a system of doctrine, but is also a life. 
That would be nearer the truth. But the life is the 
all-important thing. Doctrine that does not under 
God produce life, is more worthless than a dead 
tree; you can make fire-wood of that, but dead 
doctrine, dry as it is, you cannot even burn. Now 
if our contention be true, we find in the innermost 
nature of the divine Being the real foundation for 
the popular cry, ' ' Christianity is a life. ' ' It is so 
because men dead in sin have through grace 
poured into them the holy life of God, and they 
become first of all one with him in the fundamental 
attribute of his being. 

This truth, for which we here contend, has also 
vital connection with our preaching. Many of 
those to whom we speak are spiritually dead. 
There is no salvation for them unless they are 
brought by us, not only face to face with God, 
but into touch with him who has life in himself. 
Men touch God by faith in Christ, by personal 
trust in him. Till then there is, there can be, no 
salvation for them. No good works, no prayers, 
no tears, no round of religious duties, can secure 
the life of God for any soul; nothing short of 
personally touching him, of being united to him 
by faith, can bring the tide of God 's life in Christ 
into any lost soul. But when any soul destitute 
of a holy life, dead and desolate in sin, touches 

[70] 



The Fundamental Moral Attribute 

Christ, in whom dwells all the fulness of the God- 
head bodily, by a genuine faith, then in the twin- 
kling of an eye death ceases, and spiritual life 
with all its surging tides of blessing, of peace and 
joy flows into that soul. He that hath not the Son 
hath not life ; but he that hath the Son hath life ; 
and that life, as the great Apostle wrote, is hid 
with Christ in God. So in the light of our subject 
we can have no success in preaching except as 
we preach Christ, and under God bring men into 
touch with Christ by their faith. No wonder that 
Paul said, "I determined not to know anything 
among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. ' ' 
For only he who died for us and rose again, and 
lives forevermore can make dead souls live. 



[71] 



THE IMPORT OF JOHN 21:15-17 



THE IMPORT OF JOHN 21:15-17 

It seems to me to be probable that the Gospel 
usually attributed to the Apostle John closes with 
the twentieth chapter. Its concluding sentences 
are, — "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in 
the presence of the disciples, which are not writ- 
ten in this book: but these are written, that ye 
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God; and that believing ye may have life in his 
name." Here the author refers to certain events 
which he has not incorporated in his writing ; calls 
what he has written ' ' this book, ' ' and specifically 
states the object which he had in view in writing 
it. If there were not another chapter, every intel- 
ligent reader would regard this as a very natural 
and fitting close to all that goes before in this 
Gospel. 

Still, what is presented in the opening sentences 
of the twenty-first chapter is very closely and 
vitally linked with the events before related: 
"After these things Jesus manifested himself 
again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias." 
It is not, therefore, surprising that some thought- 
ful interpreters should conclude, that, notwith- 
standing the last words of the preceding chapter 
seem to note a formal close of the Gospel, it did 
not end there, but instead, the author wrote right 

[75] 



Science and Prayer 

on without lapse of time or break of thought to 
the close of the twenty-first chapter. Neverthe- 
less, to my own mind, the most natural and satis- 
factory view is that the Gospel really closes with 
the last words of the twentieth chapter ; and that' 
after a longer or shorter period the author added 
what we have in the twenty-first chapter as a 
postscript. By the concatenation of events it is 
vitally linked with the preceding, but in form it 
appears to be something added to that which had 
been considered as finished. This view satisfac- 
torily accounts both for the juxtaposition of 
thought and the form of literary expression. 

The author's motive for writing this postscript 
seems to have been twofold. First, his Gospel 
may have been criticised as fragmentary and in- 
complete. He therefore decided to add an account 
of the very important manifestation of the risen 
Lord to his disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Hav- 
ing done this, at the close of the postscript he 
formally defends the incompleteness of his Gospel 
by saying, "And there are also many other things 
which Jesus did, the which, if they should be 
written every one, I suppose that even the world 
itself could not contain the books that should be 
written." But, in the second place, from what 
transpired at this third manifestation of Christ 
to his disciples, a report sprang up and had gone 
abroad among believers that Jesus had declared 
that the author of this Gospel should not die. It 
was a false report and on that ground alone, an 
honest man would be strongly moved to contradict 

[76] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

it ; but the report put the writer into wrong rela- 
tions with his fellow disciples. As the brethren 
of Joseph regarded him as a favorite of their 
father, so, if this false rumor should remain un- 
contradicted, the disciples might regard the writer 
of this Gospel as one on whom Jesus had con- 
ferred special honors. If the report should not 
be corrected, it might awaken jealousies, jeop- 
ardize the success of the apostle 's labor, and stand 
in the way of the establishment of the Kingdom 
of God. So, near the close of his postscript he 
takes pains explicitly and positively to contradict 
it. 

If it should be asked why the author did not in 
his postscript simply deny the false rumor con- 
cerning himself, without treating at considerable 
length the third manifestation of Jesus to his dis- 
ciples after his resurrection, the obvious answer 
is, that he felt it to be important to place fully 
before the disciples all the circumstances out of 
which such a rumor arose. Thus all could see how 
naturally it sprung up, and that it was simply a 
perversion of a very important ethical lesson. 
This lesson we shall consider later in its proper 
relation. 

That the body of the Gospel and this postscript 
were written by the same hand scarcely admits of 
a doubt. Both were evidently penned by an eye- 
witness. "We grant that there may be some inci- 
dents delineated in this Gospel of which the writer 
may not have been personally cognizant and which 
may have been reported to him by Jesus himself ; 

[77] 



Science and Prayer 

but nearly the whole of this Gospel is manifestly 
the testimony of what the writer saw and heard. 
Take for instance the record of the first miracle 
at Cana of Galilee, where as invited guests at a 
wedding were Jesus, his mother and his disciples. 
During the progress of the feast the wine is ex- 
hausted. On account of it the family is greatly 
embarrassed, and Jesus ' mother, sharing in their 
anxiety, hastens to her Son and delicately sug- 
gests to him that he should work a miracle to meet 
the exigency. He gently rebukes her. She, how- 
ever, nothing daunted, said to the servants, 
"Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." In due 
time he said to them, "Fill with water the six 
stone waterpots," and they filled them up to the 
brim. Then in the presence of its Lord the water 
blushes into wine ; whereupon he commands them 
to draw it out and bear it to the ruler of the feast. 
He in astonishment comments on the superior 
excellence of the wine. If any one should now tell 
a story of a wedding, artlessly painting the scene 
in all of its interesting details, the hearer would 
instinctively exclaim, "Why, you were there 
then ! ' ' ; and the hearer would think for the nonce 
that he was there too. What may be said of this, 
we are also constrained to say of most of the 
scenes depicted in this Gospel. Jesus at Jacob's 
well, in the household at Bethany, at the grave 
of Lazarus, in the upper room where he said to 
Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger and see my 
hands," and many other notable incidents are so 
narrated that ordinary, intelligent readers never 

[78] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

for a moment doubt that we have here the words 
of one who saw and heard what he reports. 

If we turn to this postscript we find the same 
subtle, convincing evidence that the writer of it 
declared what was presented to his eye and ear. 
There were together seven disciples; three of 
them are named by the writer and partially de- 
scribed; two are not named but are so described 
that we know who they were ; two others are not 
identified. Then we have the declaration by the 
foremost disciple that he is going a fishing, and 
the quick response of the rest that they would go 
with him. Then follows their fruitless toiling 
during the night, the stranger on the shore just 
at the grey dawn, his friendly salutation, and his 
direction as to handling the net which brought 
instant success, the swim of Peter to the shore, 
the burning coals, the bread, the fish, the break- 
fast, the colloquy that followed, — all so unmis- 
takably suggest the words of an eye and ear wit- 
ness, that a fool could not err in reference to it. 
If an eye-witness wrote this Gospel and this post- 
script of it, they were not written by some elder, 
whose name was John, who lived about the middle 
of the second century. 

Again, the style of both the Gospel and the post- 
script shows that the same hand that wrote the 
one wrote also the other. The style of this writer 
is distinctive, unique ; it is distinctive in its severe 
simplicity; in its clear and subtle distinctions; 
in its suggestions of vast unexplored regions of 
thought. The critics say that he did not write 

[79] 



Science and Prayer 

good Greek, classical Greek; grant it, but he so 
wrote that he has impressed and stirred the pro- 
f oundest intellects of all the ages of the Christian 
church, and has also been read with special delight 
and profit by the lowly of all lands. And this 
simple, subtle, suggestive style characterizes both 
the Gospel and its postscript. 

Moreover, this eye-witness with his unmatched 
style sets forth in both the Gospel and the post- 
script the same great thought. While fully and 
unhesitatingly presenting to us the humanity of 
Christ, he wrote that he might set forth with 
special emphasis his divine nature, his deity. So 
the first sentence of his Gospel is : " In the begin- 
ning,' J in eternity, "was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God." "And 
the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and 
we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten 
[begotten as no other being ever was] from the 
Father), full of grace and truth." In Jesus' con- 
flict with the Pharisees he announces himself as 
that bread that came down from heaven, of which 
if a man eat he shall never hunger ; he claims that 
he shall raise the dead and judge the world, and 
calls upon all men to honor him even as they honor 
the Father; he declares that he existed before 
Abraham, that he that hath seen him hath seen 
the Father, that all that the Father possesses he 
possesses, — "All things that are mine are thine, 
and thine are mine"; he prays to the Father, 
"Glorify thou me with thine own self with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world 

[80] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

was." And just at the close of the Gospel, 
Thomas, delivered from all doubt of Christ's 
resurrection, said unto him, "My Lord and my 
God." Then the writer of the Gospel adds: 
"These things are written, that ye may believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." 

The great truth that Jesus is the Son of God, 
the divine Lord, is also the central, unifying 
thought of the postscript. It is the risen Lord 
that manifests himself on the shore of the Sea 
of Tiberias, provides food for his hungry follow- 
ers, controls the fish of the sea, presents himself 
as the supreme object of their love, commands 
the foremost disciple to follow him, unveils to 
him the manner of his death, and speaks of his 
own future coming. 

Who is the eye-witness that wrote both this Gos- 
pel and postscript alike in style, and dominated 
by the same great vitalizing thought, a divine 
Saviour? The writer himself replies: "I am he 
who leaned back on his breast (on Jesus' breast) 
at the supper, and said, 'Lord, who is he that 
betrayeth Thee?' I wrote these things, and know 
that what I have written is true. ' ' And after all 
the hair-splitting criticism of the past and of 
today, on good and sufficient evidence we hold 
fast to the position that John the apostle wrote 
both the Gospel and the postscript. 

But a more important matter demands our at- 
tention. What is the real significance of this 
postscript? What is its central, unifying idea? 
Is it not Peter's confession of supreme love to 

[81] 



Science and Prayer 

the divine Christ and his public restoration to the 
office that the Master had called him to fill, and 
from which, by his denial he had fallen? So far 
as we are able let us grasp the meaning of this 
great passage of Scripture. 

Since his resurrection, Jesus had already ap- 
peared twice to the eleven; once to ten of them 
on the evening of his resurrection day, in the 
upper room at Jerusalem, Thomas being absent; 
one week later in the same room to them all, 
Thomas being present, when with all the ardor 
of his nature he said to Christ, "My Lord and 
my God." Now for many days Jesus left these 
disciples to their own reflections. At last time be- 
gan to hang heavily on mind and heart ; for their 
own happiness they needed employment. Most of 
them also were poor. It is not unlikely that their 
purses needed replenishing. In these circum- 
stances it was very natural for them to turn to 
that calling with which they were most familiar. 
And just as we should reasonably expect, the 
energetic, impulsive Peter was the first to say to 
his fellows, " I go a fishing. ' ' It needed only this 
declaration from him to elicit their prompt re- 
sponse, "We also come with thee." They got 
into a boat in the evening and pushed out a little 
way from shore, and began their toil for the night. 
There were only seven of them, Peter, Thomas, 
Nathaniel, James and John, and two others whose 
names are not mentioned. As it is sometimes 
with fishermen, their toil during the live-long 
night was bootless. Just at the break of day they 

[82] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

saw, as they supposed, a stranger on the shore. 
But this stranger evidently had a lively interest 
in them, for his voice came sweetly across the 
waters, ' ' Children, have ye aught to eat ! ' ' They 
respectfully answered the questioner, "No." Did 
not the address, "children" make them think that 
he was not wholly a stranger? He cried to them, 
"Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and 
ye shall find." There was something command- 
ing and compelling in the words that he uttered, 
for they at once do his bidding. Immediately the 
net is filled with fish. It is so heavy that they are 
not able to draw it up into the boat ; they can only 
drag it along in the sea. What passed through 
John's mind we do not certainly know. Perhaps 
he remembered a similar draught of fishes from 
that same sea soon after they began to follow the 
Lord. Perhaps he thought, there stands the one 
who is Lord of "whatsoever passeth through the 
paths of the seas. ' ' But whatever was the process 
of his thought, as soon as the net was filled with 
fishes, John said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When 
Peter heard that, he girt his coat about him, 
plunged into the sea and swam straight to the 
shore. He must be the first to greet his Lord! 
Peter's feeling was vastly different from what it 
was when, near the beginning of Christ's min- 
istry, obeying the word of Jesus he let down his 
net and enclosed a multitude of fishes. At that 
time he fell down at Jesus ' knees, saying, ' ' Depart 
from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord"; but 
Peter had grown spiritually since that day. Now, 

[83] 



Science and Prayer 

instead of praying the Lord to depart from him 
he swims to the shore that he may at once be with 
him. What passed between them we do not know. 
The rest of the disciples came in the boat drag- 
ging the net with fishes. Stepping upon the shore 
an unexpected sight greeted their eyes. There 
were at their feet glowing coals, toasting bread 
and broiling fish. Their Lord had not been un- 
mindful of their hunger, and had bountifully pro- 
vided for their wants. But since it is his will that 
men should ever co-operate with him in meeting 
their necessities, he said, " Bring of the fish which 
ye have now taken. ' ' It is now the ardent, zealous 
Peter, who, before any of his fellow disciples, 
steps onto the boat, grasps the net and drags it to 
the shore. How natural the action that follows! 
They all gather about the full but unrent net and 
count the fishes taken out, perhaps more than 
once, and find that there are one hundred, fifty 
and three. Some of them are now probably 
dressed and broiled that the repast may be abun- 
dant for these hungry fishermen. And when all 
is ready, the Lord, the provider of the table, says 
to them, "Come and break your fast," just our 
familiar, "Come to breakfast." 

But thus far in the passage there is no hint that 
the disciples talked with Jesus. There is a strong 
indication that they did not. They seemed to 
have been filled with reverential awe. They knew 
that it was the Lord ; but, as gratifying as it would 
have been to have their positive conviction con- 
firmed by a declaration from his lips, no one of 

[84] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

them ventured to ask, "Who art thou?" And at 
the moment when the breakfast was fully pre- 
pared, Jesus seemed to have been standing a 
little aloof from them, for he " cometh and taketh 
the bread and giveth them, and the fish likewise. ' ' 
He who provided the feast is both the host and 
the servant of his hungry brethren. 

We come now to the great central lesson of the 
Scripture in hand. The preceding lessons are of 
high import. The waiting of these disciples after 
their risen Lord showed himself to them the sec- 
ond time must have seemed to them long and 
weary. It must have been a severe trial to their 
faith. But his third appearance to them showed 
them that their Lord had not forgotten or aban- 
doned them. Ever watchful over them, and still 
training them for their future labor, he once more 
taught them by this draught of fishes that their 
future success in catching men, lifting them out of 
this world and bringing them into his kingdom, de- 
pended on prompt obedience to his word; not by 
their toil alone, however persistent, but by his 
accompanying and energizing word should they 
realize their mission. That draught of fishes was 
putting into concrete form the old, but ever vital 
prophetic message, ' ' Not by might nor by power, 
but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts." He 
had also taught them by the breakfast which he 
had prepared for them on the shore that it was 
his purpose to care even for the bodily wants of 
his toiling disciples. They were not to expect lux- 
ury, but such wholesome food as would fit them 

[85] 



Science and Prayer 

for the most efficient labor in saving souls. But 
all this simply led up to a still more important 
lesson for them all, and especially for Peter, to 
whom it was particularly directed. 

The breakfast was over. The appetites of all 
were satisfied. The divine host, the risen Lord, 
turned his eyes full upon Peter. It may have re- 
minded that disciple of the look which the suffer- 
ing Saviour gave him in the palace of Caiaphas, 
which melted him to repentance ; and as the risen 
Lord looked way down into the depths of Peter's 
heart, the searching words were poured into his 
ears, " Simon, son of John (R. V.), lovest thou me 
more than these V This disciple had received 
from his Lord the name of Peter, but in this inter- 
view Jesus discards it and goes back to the old 
name of his disciple. In view of what he did at 
his Lord's trial before Caiaphas, to have called 
him Peter, Rock, would have been little short of 
cutting, bitter sarcasm. This, in probing Peter's 
conscience, the Lord avoids. 

Also in this first question Jesus used the phrase, 
i ' More than these. ' ' The interrogatory was, l ' Do 
you love me more genuinely, more truly than do 
your fellow disciples? Is your love superior to 
that of these brethren with whom you have just 
partaken of this frugal meal ? ' ' This carried Peter 
back a few days to the time of his self-confidence 
and self-assurance, to the hour when his Lord 
said, ' ' All ye shall be offended in me this night, ' p 
and he in his overweening trust in himself had 
contradicted his Master and declared, ' ' If all shall 

[86] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

be offended in thee," if all shall stumble into sin 
because of thee, on account of what thou art or 
dost, "I will never be offended," I will never 
stumble into sin, thus putting himself above his 
fellows. And when in spite of his lofty and loud 
profession of fidelity Jesus said to him, "This 
night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me 
thrice, ' ' he vehemently affirmed, ' l Even if I must 
die with thee, yet will I not deny thee." But 
while his boastful words still rung in the ears of 
his fellow disciples, he, on account of what his 
Lord was passing through, stumbled more deeply 
into sin than any of them, cowardly denying his 
Lord, even with cursing and swearing. Of his 
assumed superiority over his fellows, of his 
boastfulness and shameful fall, those words, 
"more than these," forcefully reminded him. 
But when he answered the heart-searching ques- 
tion, he made no allusion to others, but simply 
affirmed his love to his Lord, justifying the sin- 
cerity of his profession by appealing to the Lord's 
knowledge of his heart: "Yea, Lord, thou know- 
est that I love thee." Boastfulness over others 
is gone ; trust in the omniscient Lord has taken the 
place of trust in self. On the basis of this profes- 
sion of his love, the Master bade him, ' ' Feed my 
lambs. ' ' 

But the Lord said the second time, ' l Simon, son 
of John, lovest thou me?" and received the same 
answer as before; and on the basis of Peter's 
twice-professed love he bade him, "Tend my 
sheep. ' ' 

[87] 



Science and Prayer 

But the third time the same question came from 
the lips of the risen Lord, and " Peter was 
grieved because he said unto him the third time, 
lovest thou me!" Why was he grieved? 

Ordinarily such repetition of a question would 
suggest to the one interrogated that the ques- 
tioner doubted his truthfulness. But Peter's 
twice-repeated "Thou knowest that I love thee" 
seems to me to preclude the entertainment of any 
such notion by him. And Jesus' commands, 
"Feed my lambs, — tend my sheep," apparently 
show that Jesus thoroughly believed that Peter 
was honest and that his love was genuine. So 
Peter could not have been grieved by entertain- 
ing the notion that the Lord doubted him. 

His grief arose from the fact that the third 
repetition of the question brought back vividly 
and powerfully the whole scene of his cowardly 
denial. Before his fall Jesus said to him, ' ' Thou 
shalt deny me thrice ' ' — three times. When he had 
entered into the court of the palace of Caiaphas, 
the maid that kept the door accused him of being 
a disciple of the Nazarene, and he denied it. He 
now retreated from the fire in the open court, 
where he was warming himself, into the shadow 
of the arch that led from the street to the court ; 
but very soon another maid saw him and said to 
the crowd in the court, * ' This man also was with 
Jesus the Nazarene," and he denied it with an 
oath and reiterated this denial when those stand- 
ing around the fire in the open court, joining the 
maid in her accusation, asked him, "Art thou also 

[88] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

one of his disciples ?" Twice now, before all 
those in the open court he has denied his Lord, 
confirming his last denial with a solemn oath. 

About an hour after, they in the open court 
declared to Peter, "Of a truth thou art also one 
of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee," thou art 
a Galilean. And one of them directly appealed to 
him, "Did I not see thee in the garden with him?" 
Peter now lost his balance, began to curse and 
swear, and declare between his oaths that he did 
not know Jesus. This is the third denial. Now 
the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. Then 
the crowing of the cock brought to the mind of 
the faithless disciple Jesus' words, "Verily I say 
unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, 
thou shalt deny me thrice" — three times. Keenly 
conscious of his threefold denial Peter wept, and 
went out of the court and found some secret place 
and there wept bitterly. That three-fold denial 
prophesied by Christ, enacted by Peter, was 
branded upon the very substance of his soul. He 
could never forget it. Tradition says that ever 
after there was a tear in his eye. Jesus by the 
words, "more than these," had already carried 
him back to the hour of his boastful self-confi- 
dence, and the whole sad history that followed was 
vividly before him. He heard the Master again, 
"Thou shalt deny me three times," — his three 
awful denials sounded through the halls of his 
memory; nothing so aroused and touched him to 
the quick as that three times. This the Master 
knew ; and that he might probe his disciple 's con- 

[89] 



Science and Prayer 

science to the core, three times he asked, ' ' Simon, 
son of John, lovest thou mel" But when he asked 
it the third time, Peter 's soul was pierced with the 
sharpest grief, and he answered, very likely with 
tears and sobs, "Lord, thou knowest all things; 
thou knowest that I love thee." "Jesus said unto 
him, Feed my sheep. ' ' 

What was the Lord's object in all this? Surely 
he would not have caused his disciple to feel any 
unnecessary pang. But Peter had greatly sinned. 
The fact that all things considered he was the 
foremost disciple made his offence all the greater. 
So the Lord determined thoroughly to probe his 
conscience; that through and through he might 
be contrite and might realize in the very depths 
of his consciousness that he had repented of his 
great sin. And it was important also that he 
should make his three-fold confession of his 
love for Jesus before his fellow disciples, that 
they too might be fully and impressively assured 
of the depth and genuineness of his compunction. 

Nor must we forget that he had been openly 
chosen by Christ to do a great and specific work, 
and had been put by him into the most exalted 
office of the infant church. On the one hand he 
was called to be a fisher of men — that was his dis- 
tinctive task ; but on the other hand, he with others 
had been separated from the rank and file of the 
followers of Christ and made an apostle, — that 
was his high station. 

Moreover, with two others he had been distin- 
guished even from the twelve and drawn into 

[90] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

closer personal relations with his Lord than they. 
On account of this intimate relationship he went 
with Jesus up into the Mount of Transfiguration. 
In an ever memorable interview he had been fore- 
most in confessing that Jesus was "the 
Christ, the Son of the living God," and 
in turn had received the special blessing of 
his Lord. "When Jesus felt the sorest need 
of human sympathy, Peter with James and 
John had gone with him into the shadow 
and gloom of Gethsemane. But by his open 
and thrice-repeated denial of the Lord who 
had so highly honored him, he had miserably 
fallen from his high vocation and office and 
brought discredit upon his great confession. It 
was therefore necessary that his restoration to 
his work and office should be, if possible, as public 
and conspicuous as had been his denial and fall. 
He himself needed to know that his Lord had not 
only forgiven his great sin, but had recalled him 
to his work and had put him once more into his 
former position. If in the future he was to work 
effectively for the salvation of men, there must 
not be so much as one faint, lingering doubt of his 
complete pardon by his Lord and full restoration 
to his work and apostleship. This was necessary, 
not only for him, but also for his fellow apostles. 
To insure their faith in Peter and in his leader- 
ship, they too must know beyond a peradventure 
that the past had been blotted out by Christ, and 
that he who under stress and in fear had denied 
his Lord, had once more his full confidence, and 

[91] 



Science and Prayer 

was re-commissioned by him to do the work and 
to fill the office to which he was originally called. 

So the Master, in the presence of six of Peter's 
apostolic associates, bids him three times, answer- 
ing to his threefold denial and threefold 
confession of love, to care for and nour- 
ish the lambs and sheep of his flock. If, 
in the future, some one objecting should say, 
"Why is this apostle, who thrice denied his Lord, 
so prominent and aggressive in service V 9 — six 
men, associates with him in labor, could bear wit- 
ness that the risen Lord, in their presence and 
hearing, three times commanded him to do this 
work; he solemnly re-commissioned him thrice 
over to care for those who believe in him and fol- 
low him; over against each shameful denial he 
placed his renewed commission, "Feed my lambs; 
Feed my sheep.' ' And if, thereafter, the con- 
science of Peter at times should accuse him afresh 
for his recreant acts and words in the palace of 
Caiaphas — as it doubtless did — he would hear^ 
over against his repeated denial the Master's re- 
peated re-commission, and be reassured and 
comforted and enabled to go on in peace with his 
great work. 

While his work was one, it was two-sided. He 
was under Christ to bring men out of the world 
into the kingdom of God ; according to the terms 
of his original commission he was to catch men — 
and then nourish them and build them up "into 
the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
Christ." Peter certainly did the first; how suc- 

[92] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

cessfully the results of his preaching at Jerusalem 
on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently in the 
house of Cornelius in Csesarea testify. But it is 
worthy of note that when the risen Lord, at the 
Sea of Tiberias, re-commissioned Peter it was the 
second phase of his work that he specially empha- 
sized, the nourishing, the caring for the sheep. 
Jesus had intimated to Peter, even before his de- 
nial, that this was to be his pre-eminent task. 
Predicting his temporary downfall, he said — oh, 
with what tender solicitude — "But I made suppli- 
cation for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and do thou 
when once thou hast turned again, establish thy 
brethren.' ' The Epistles of Peter bear witness 
that the apostle gave himself with great assiduity 
to the work of feeding "the elect who are so- 
journers of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. ' ' And in his first 
Epistle the once self-confident apostle strength- 
ened the brethren not only with the great central 
truths of the Gospel, but also out of the depths of 
his own experience as he wrote: "Yea, all of you 
gird yourselves with humility, to serve one an- 
other; for God resisteth the proud" — that is the 
cry from Peter's soul, when he went out and wept 
bitterly — "but giveth grace to the humble" — an 
echo of what was granted to contrite humble Peter 
when his risen Lord, forgiving and forgetting his 
great sin, said to him, ' ' Feed my lambs. ' ' 

And we must not fail to notice that the Lord 
in this personal colloquy with Peter made love, 
just as Paul did, the supreme grace. He did not 

[93] 



Science and Prayer 

ask his penitent apostle whether he believed in 
him, or had hope of eternal life, but whether he 
loved him, and on the emphatic confession of that 
grace he publicly restored him to his work and 
office. The Lord demanded positive, unmistakable 
love because that grace pre-eminently determines 
character. What a man loves reveals unerringly 
what he is. 

Moreover, the object towards which we must 
exercise supreme love is here clearly presented 
to us. "Lovest thou me?" Jesus did not ask, 
"Dost thou love God! " — although he had taught 
with iteration and emphasis that the first great 
commandment is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy mind" (Matt. 22: 37). Did he then 
in this colloquy with Peter repudiate what he had 
before taught f Nay, verily ! He who talked with 
penitent Simon, "in the beginning" — in eternity 
— "was with God, and was God." It was he con- 
cerning whom Jehovah said: "Let all the angels 
of God worship him. ' ' He had become flesh and 
dwelt among us. He had conquered death on our 
behalf. Just because he was God, he claimed for 
himself the absolute love of Peter. "Lovest thou 
me?" Before his crucifixion he said to Philip: 
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"; 
and with his reiterated question to Simon before 
us, without any fear of making a mistake, we can 
add: "He that loves the risen Lord loves the 
Father." That the Father is well pleased when 
we render supreme love to Christ, Jesus declares 

[94] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

in these words : ' ' He that loveth me shall be loved 
of my Father" (John 14: 21). 

But in the report of Christ's conversation with 
penitent Peter on the shore of Tiberias, do the 
words used by John to designate the act of loving 
throw any special light on this great transaction? 
In the first and second questions we have agapao; 
this word signifies loving with esteem; it usually 
involves the notion of admiration of righteous 
character, and the purpose of bestowing kindness 
on the one esteemed and admired. Its Latin syn- 
onym is diligo. It is a word that pre-eminently 
expresses the Christian conception of loving. 

In the third question we find phileo. This sig- 
nifies love which expresses itself through feeling, 
emotion; it conveys the notion of instinctive, 
warm, personal affection. This verb is found in 
every one of Peter's replies; probably expressing 
his warm personal affection for Jesus. Its Latin 
synonym is amo. Some interpreters think that 
Jesus' use of phileo instead of agapao, in the 
third question, was what caused the grief of 
Peter; they suggest that the word made Peter 
think that the Lord called in question his per- 
sonal attachment to him, and this broke the heart 
of the ardent disciple. 

But all such interpretations, it seems to me, 
inject into the text what it does not contain. We 
grant freely that there is a distinction between the 
two verbs, agapao and phileo; but the demarca- 
tion between them is not rigid and absolute. The 
classical Greek writer expressed by phileo not 

[95] 



Science and Prayer 

only warm personal love, but also love of esteem 
for character. But, confining ourselves simply to 
the writings of the New Testament, it is clear that 
in them these two words were sometimes used in- 
terchangeably. To be sure, agapao is used in a 
very large majority of the passages where the act 
of love is set forth, but not in all. And it is not 
always used to express esteem for righteousness 
or righteous character, but sometimes to express 
the love of self and pelf. For example, the Phari- 
sees loved (agapao) the chief seats in the syna- 
gogue (Luke 11:43), and Balaam, the son of 
Beor, loved (agapao) the hire of wrong-doing. 
And while agapao is more frequently employed 
by New Testament writers than phileo, the lat- 
ter is often used by them to set forth love not 
only in the lower but also in the higher relations, 
and they employed both alike to express love on 
the same plane and for the same object. For ex- 
ample, Jesus says of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:6) 
they love (phileo) the chief places at feasts and 
the chief seats in the synagogue; whereas Luke 
reports (Luke 11:43) Jesus as saying to the 
Pharisees, "Ye love (agapao) the chief seats in 
the synagogue. ' ' In these passages the two verbs 
are used interchangeably; the one regarded as 
fit as the other to express love for that which 
ministers to personal vanity. 

It has been claimed that agapao is the word 
used to express love in all the higher and more 
sacred relations of life, and we grant that in the 
New Testament it is by far the most frequently 

[96] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

employed to set forth love in such relations, but 
by no means exclusively. For example, while 
Paul (Eph. 5 : 25) in one Epistle exhorts husbands 
to love (agapao) their wives, in another Epistle 
(Titus 2:4) he directs that the young women be 
trained to love (phileo) their husbands and their 
children. Phileo is also used in the same Epistle 
to express brotherly love (Titus 3:15): "Salute 
them that love (phileo) us in faith.' ' And in 
1 Pet. 3:8 we read: "Loving (phileo) as breth- 
ren"; the Greek word is a compound, "brethren- 
lovers." 

Phileo is also used in the New Testament to 
express the love that men should have to the Lord. 
Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:22): 
"If any man loveth (phileo) not the Lord, let 
him be anathema." And it is also employed to 
set forth Christ's love both to his special friends 
and to his children. Of his love to his special 
friends we have two examples, in both of which 
the two verbs are used interchangeably (John 
11:5) : "Now Jesus loved (agapao) Martha, and 
her sister, and Lazarus ' ' ; but as Jesus went weep- 
ing to the grave of Lazarus, the Jews who were 
looking on said, "Behold how he loved (phileo) 
him." But, if possible, we have a more strik- 
ing example of the interchangeable use of these 
verbs in the characterization of Jesus' spe- 
cial love for John. In John 13 : 23 we read : 
"There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom 
one of his disciples whom Jesus loved" (agapao) ; 
but on the morning of the resurrection, we are 

[97] 



Science and Prayer 

told by the same writer (20: 2), that Mary Mag- 
dalene ' ' cometh to Simon Peter and to the other 
disciple whom Jesus loved" (phileo). 

But in the Revelation the love of the exalted 
and glorified Jesus for his followers is expressed 
by phileo (Eev. 3:19), "As many as I love 
(phileo) I rebuke and chasten.' ' But our argu- 
ment is cumulative, since, in the New Testament 
the love of God the Father for his children is ex- 
pressed by phileo. Jesus, in his great farewell 
discourse, said to his disciples (John 16:27): 
"For the Father himself loveth you (phileo), be- 
cause ye have loved (phileo) me." Here we have 
both the love of God to his children and their love 
to his eternal Son expressed by phileo. But phileo 
was regarded by John as a fit vehicle for the 
expression of the love of God the Father for his 
only-begotten Son (John 5:20). In reporting 
Jesus' words he says, "For the Father loveth 
(phileo) the Son." 

We see, then, that phileo is employed by New 
Testament writers, and especially by the writer 
of the Fourth Gospel, to express love even in all 
the highest and most sacred relations of men to 
one another and to God, and of God to men, and 
even of the Father to the Son. Moreover, we have 
seen how the author of the Fourth Gospel, at 
times, uses the two verbs, agapao and phileo, 
interchangeably. If he did this in the body of 
his Gospel, in all probability he did it also in the 
postscript of his Gospel. And such marked dis- 
tinctions between these verbs as the critics have 

[98] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

made, distinctions of which John evidently never 
dreamed, loads a simple and important narrative 
with far-fetched philological speculations which 
obscnre its real meaning, which shroud its light 
in mist. John probably instinctively used both 
of these verbs, which are substantially synony- 
mous, just as any writer would do now, simply to 
give variety to his diction and avoid monotony of 
style. 

But still another consideration, it seems to us, 
ought to check the speculations of commentators 
on the difference in the meaning of these two 
verbs. Whether Jesus in his colloquy with Peter 
used one word to express the act of loving or two 
words we cannot tell. 

If he used two, whether there was a shade of 
difference between them we cannot now ascertain. 
We have no conclusive evidence that he spoke 
Greek. That he possibly might have done so we 
must of course grant, since both John and Peter, 
a few years later, wrote in that tongue. But 
scholars generally hold that Jesus spoke Aramaic. 
In that dialect of the Hebrew he and Peter prob- 
ably spoke with each other on the shore of 
Tiberias. That John has faithfully reported the 
conversation I, for one, have not the shadow of a 
doubt. But if in the colloquy Jesus used two 
words to express the act of loving, nobody now 
knows what they were, so no one can now intelli- 
gently speculate about them. While the two verbs 
found in John's report, we have already shown, 
were used interchangeably by him in his Gospel 

[99] 



Science and Prayer 

and in all probability in the twenty-first chapter, 
which we have treated as a postscript to his 
Gospel. 

It still remains for us to inquire what is meant 
by the love on which Jesus so strenuously in- 
sisted. Not, certainly, simply emotion excited by 
some object and lavished upon it. That emotion 
attends love is true, but it is not the love itself. 
In the last analysis love is pre-eminently prefer- 
ence. One who loves prefers some object above all 
others, and that preference bends all the powers 
of the one preferring to the service of the object 
supremely preferred. Such a preference, leading 
all the activities of the soul in its train is always 
attended with pleasurable sensibility, often with 
powerful emotion; but to mistake the sensibility 
or the emotion for the love, for supreme prefer- 
ence, frequently leads to mischief. Now, this is 
the purport of Jesus ' question to Peter. ' i Simon, 
son of John, lovest thou me, preferest thou me 
above all others? So preferest thou me that 
every energy of thy being flows full-tide into glad 
service to meV 

This question leads us finally to ask, What are 
the fruits of such love? Eegarding Christ as the 
one supremely preferred, such preference, such 
love, naturally expresses itself in obedience and 
service. And here we discern another ligament 
which binds this postscript with the body of the 
Gospel. Christ in his last great discourse to his 
disciples before his agony in the garden said: "If 
ye love me ye will keep my commandments. ' ' He 

[100] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

here calls on Peter to illustrate this general prin- 
ciple in his life. By his probing questions he 
makes his disciple more profoundly conscious of 
love to him; he still further deepens Peter's 
consciousness of love by leading him ardently to 
profess it again and again, and at each profession 
of it he calls upon him to manifest it in obedience 
and loving service. "Thou knowest that I love 
thee,'' says the penitent Peter; "Then," says the 
risen Lord, "show your love by tenderly caring 
for my sheep. ' ' 

But such love not only expresses itself in assid- 
uous toil for others, but it enables those who exer- 
cise it to endure without murmur the severest 
hardships and sharpest trials in the service of 
their divine Lord. Jesus had no sooner said in 
response to Simon's third confession of his love, 
1 l Feed my sheep, ' ' than, without a break, he went 
straight on to say to him: "Verily, verily, I say 
unto thee, when thou wast young thou girdest 
thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest ; but 
when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth 
thy hands and another shall gird thee and carry 
thee whither thou wouldest not. But this he 
spake, signifying by what manner of death he 
should glorify God. And when he had spoken 
this, he said unto him, Follow me. ' ' 

The writer has not left us in doubt as to the 
main import of these words ; they were a prophecy 
that Peter, after he had grown gray in his 
Master's service, should suffer a violent death. 
i ' Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another 

[101] 



Science and Prayer 

shall gird thee," may be a distinctive prophecy 
that he should be taken into custody by the officers 
of the government, who would bind his hands 
with cords, just as they bound Jesus' hands when 
they apprehended him in the Garden of Geth- 
semane, and carry him whither he would not — 
take him away to his trial in the court — or the 
words may refer to death by crucifixion. When 
one was crucified he was not always nailed to a 
cross, but sometimes lashed to it by cords. The 
cross was laid on the ground, the victim was bound 
to it; it was then lifted with the victim upon it 
to an upright position and made fast in the earth. 
The few words of Jesus may have been an outline 
picture of this. But if reasonable objection may 
be made to any specific interpretation of the 
words, John, by his comment has made it clear 
that they refer to Simon's martyrdom. And that 
reveals their vital connection with what goes im- 
mediately before. For when Jesus had predicted 
Simon's violent death he said to him, " Follow 
me." "Your love must be such that it will lead 
you to follow me, whatever awaits you. You may 
have manifold and bitter trials; a violent death 
when you are an old man will be your lot, never- 
theless, follow me; if that love that you have 
thrice so emphatically confessed is genuine, you 
will not only gladly feed my sheep, but for my 
sake you will die without a murmur, lashed to a 
cross." 

* i But last of all, if your love is genuine it will 
enable you to be steadfast in my service irrespec- 

[102] 



The Import of John 21:15-17 

tive of what I do to others. ' ' Peter followed his 
risen Lord as he walked along the shore of the 
Sea of Tiberias, and looking back he saw John 
a little behind them, also following. Now as the 
Lord had lifted the curtain and revealed to Peter 
something of his future, his curiosity was excited 
to know what was to be John's career and fate; 
so he asked : ' ' Lord, and what shall this man do 1 ' ' 
Jesus said unto him, "If I will that he tarry till 
I come what is that to thee?" Then again Jesus 
said to him, "Follow thou me." "No matter 
how I may order the life of John, his career and 
fate do not change your duty. If I will that he 
tarry on the earth until I come again, that will 
not absolve you from my service. If you indeed 
love me you will follow me, however much the 
condition of others may differ from your own." 

This chapter, then, so full of varied and inter- 
esting incident is instinct with one great thought, 
the genuine love of the disciple for his Master. 
All the events in the first of the chapter lead 
directly up to the question which the risen Lord 
asks Simon. It is an inquiry as to the fact of his 
love to Him. His love for Jesus is thrice con- 
fessed. Its fruit is obedient service, no matter 
how bitter the trials such service may involve, or 
how the Lord may see fit to make our condition 
to differ from that of others. 

We have considered not merely an interesting 
fact of Gospel history, but a truth which "takes 
hold on our business and bosoms." Simon's 
risen Lord is ours also. He asks us, as we read 

[103] 



Science and Prayer 

this Scripture, the same question that He asked 
him. James, son of Charles, lovest thou me? 
Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. Then 
nurture those children that I have given thee 
' ' in the chastening and admonition of the Lord. ' p 
Theodore, son of Christopher, lovest thou me? 
Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. Then 
use honestly thy talent for making money, and 
gather wealth not for selfish ends, but for the 
betterment of your fellow men. Jacob, son of 
Eobert, lovest thou me ? Yea, Lord, thou knowest 
that I love thee. Then go out into the streets 
and lanes of thy city, find those who do not know 
me and tell them of my love and my salvation. 
Martha, daughter of Alfred, lovest thou me? 
Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. Then, 
make home for thy children the most attractive 
place on earth, and so far as possible minister to 
the sick and cheer the disconsolate in thine own 
neighborhood, remembering that inasmuch as 
thou doest it unto even the least of these thou 
doest it unto me. Both our usefulness and our 
destiny are determined by the answer that we can 
truthfully give to our risen Lord's soul-testing 
question, "Lovest thou me!" 



[104] 



THE EEASONABLENESS OF ETEENAL 
PUNISHMENT 



THE EEASONABLENESS OF ETERNAL 
PUNISHMENT 

God has given to man freedom of choice and 
of action. All agree that God made man so far 
forth free, that he is strictly responsible for what 
he deliberately does. At the same time each man 
has his moral and spiritual affinities. If his moral 
character is essentially bad, if he is spiritually 
corrupt, so that he loves and cherishes sin, his 
affinities lead him to choose the society of wicked 
men. If, though imperfect, he is at heart holy, 
he seeks the society of the holy. The spiritual 
affinities of men may, indeed, be changed, since 
the characters of men may be, and often are, 
transformed. Then we see those who have been 
lovers of sin quitting the ranks of the depraved 
that they may join themselves to God's people. 
But in this world, where the good and the evil 
are often strangely thrown together, through 
temporary motives and circumstances, a man, 
for a season, may be outwardly united to those 
with whom he has no spiritual affinity. This was 
the case with Judas. For some reason, even 
when, in the language of Christ, he was a devil, 
he joined himself to the disciples. Perhaps he 
retained his place out of love for the money-bag 
which they asked him to carry, the contents 
of which probably often stuck to his covetous, 

[107] 



Science and Prayer 

viscous fingers. But he was out of place. And 
when he could make more money by betraying 
his Lord than he could by following him, he did 
not hesitate to desert Christ and the disciples, 
to unite himself to their enemies, and act the part 
of the traitor. He went where his spiritual affin- 
ities led him. 

We find this principle verified on every hand. 
Converted men go straight into Christian society. 
They can feel at home nowhere else. Those 
wedded to sin seek the company of the godless. 
It requires much persuasion, and strong per- 
sonal influence, to induce them to spend even an 
hour in the place where the holiest of God's 
people meet to pray. Where worldlings, or the 
profane, or the drunken, or libertines assemble, 
they find congenial society. They go voluntarily 
to their own place. 

But the same laws which govern men in this 
world will govern them in the next. Death does 
not transform a man's character, it simply re- 
moves him to another place and to other scenes. 
Crossing a river or stepping behind a curtain 
does not essentially change a man's moral nature, 
nor alter his spiritual affinities. What they were 
on the one side, they are on the other. When 
a man, by death, steps behind the curtain which 
hides from us the unseen world, he continues to 
be the same man that he was in the moment of 
dissolution. The same laws of thinking, of lov- 
ing, of choosing, and willing, which controlled and 
governed him here, control and govern him there. 

[108] 



Eternal Punishment 

His moral character and spiritual affinities re- 
main essentially the same. Just as he chose his 
society here, he chooses it there. If he belongs to 
Christ and is holy, he goes from choice to be with 
his Lord and with the redeemed. If he belongs 
to Satan, and loves sin, he goes, from choice, to 
be with the devil and his angels. Just as Judas 
did, when he had added to the crime of the be- 
trayal that of self-murder, he went to his own 
place. 

It is a mistaken notion that God arbitrarily 
thrusts men into hell, that, by power exerted 
upon them from without, he forces them into a 
place and into society for which they have no 
affinity. He is represented by the popular lan- 
guage of the Scriptures as casting them into hell, 
but he evidently does this without doing any vio- 
lence to the established laws of man's being; he 
does it by acting in and through those laws. In 
harmony with this thought Christ says, speaking 
of the final judgment on the wicked, " these shall 
go," that is voluntarily, "into everlasting pun- 
ishment,' ' just as the righteous shall go volun- 
tarily "into life eternal." And Judas is repre- 
sented as going voluntarily to his own place. 

God does not keep men out of heaven. He 
plies them with every possible motive to induce 
them to prepare for it and enter it. John, on the 
island of Patmos, saw heaven as a resplendent 
city of precious stones and massive pearls and 
gold. He said the gates of it were not shut at 
all by day, and that there was no night there. 

[109] 



Science and Prayer 

The gates of heaven always stand wide open, 
while " without are dogs and sorcerers, and 
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and 
whosoever loveth and maketh a lie"; but the 
angels, with all their persuasive eloquence, could 
not induce one of those lost spirits to enter, even 
for a moment, through those open gates of pearl. 
Heaven is not their place. They have no affinity 
for its holiness. 

"The heavenly gates stand open, 

What is it keeps them out, 
That weary crowd of wailers 

Who stand and weep without? 
What strange, mysterious safeguard 

Protects the open door, 
That not one guilty footstep 

Has stained the crystal floor? 

"Ah soul, why wonder further? 

Turn but one glance within ; 
Thou hast the dreadful secret 

Hid in thy heart of sin. 
That heart which hates its Saviour, 

And spurns his love untold 
Would dread the pearly portal, 

And shun the streets of gold." 

But when wicked men have gone to their own 
place will their spiritual affinities ever be 
so changed that they will seek the society of the 
holy? This is in substance the question that has 
been often asked. Some admit that there is a 
hell; but they doubt as to whether the pun- 
ishment of the lost will be eternal. They think 
it possible that even Judas may yet enter into 

[110] 



Eternal Punishment 

everlasting fellowship with Christ whom he sold 
for thirty pieces of silver, and then, having be- 
trayed him with a hypocritical kiss, departed and 
hung himself. 

But is there, even on philosophical grounds, 
any room for such a view? Assuredly, first of 
all, the manifest effect of sin on the human heart 
is wholly at variance with such a notion. There 
is in all who cherish and habitually commit sin an 
alarming and powerful tendency toward fixed- 
ness in it. Every act of transgression makes 
stronger the bonds of the sinner, and lessens the 
probability of his recovery from sin. This is a 
fact so notorious that it is well understood by all. 
In view of it Jeremiah exclaimed, i ' Can the Ethio- 
pian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? 
then may ye also do good that are accustomed to 
do evil." Men enter hell whose habits of sinning 
are already fixed. And every moment, as they 
continue to sin, they are growing into still greater 
fixedness in evil. The longer one continues in the 
world of the lost, therefore, the farther any hope 
of his recovery recedes. 

But not only the habit of sinning becomes in- 
veterate, but there is constant progress in moral 
corruption. Men never, even in this life, stand 
still in sin. They go from bad to worse. They 
constantly press their way downward into greater 
depths of iniquity. The inward bias toward sin 
is incessantly augmented, while the restraints 
of conscience from within, and the checks of pub- 
lic opinion from without, are perpetually weak- 

[in] 



Science and Prayer 

ened. This needs no proof. The awful fact is 
patent to every mind. But here there are some 
barriers which resist man's propensities to sin. 
Conscience at times awakes and utters its sharp 
and solemn protests. The good speak words of 
warning. Christian friends pour forth their ten- 
der entreaties. The Sabbath, the sanctuary, and 
the Bible confront the transgressor that they may 
save him from impending ruin. But when the 
sinner shall have gone to his own place, all of 
these checks to his progress in evil, save per- 
chance one, will have been withdrawn forever. If 
conscience shall still continue to reprove and lash 
the lost, as it failed here on earth permanently to 
stay the sinner's progress in evil, so it must just 
as signally fail in the future world ; but, long dis- 
regarded, it may, perhaps, sink into everlasting 
slumber. And in that world of woe there will be 
none of the good — that is not their place — to en- 
treat the sinning. No Sabbath, no sanctuary, no 
Bible, will be there to warn and bless. Men, 
there, will be left to themselves, their tendency to 
evil ever increasing, while every influence from 
without will be evil, and only evil. If men with 
rapid pace sweep onward in sin here, how much 
more rapidly there? What hope, we ask, can 
there be that the spiritual affinities of wicked men 
will ever be changed after they have voluntarily 
gone to their own place ? 

But many have entertained the notion that pun- 
ishment is reformatory; that if sin is not eradi- 
cated from the human heart by milder means, it 

[112] 



Eternal Punishment 

will, at last, be burned out by purgatorial fires. 
There is however no basis for this view in the 
facts of human experience. What we already 
know disproves it. Pain, anguish, both of body 
and mind, is the fruit of sin; is punishment for 
sin. No sane man disputes that. The sufferings 
of our race are so manifold and exquisite that 
no tongue or pen can adequately portray them. 
This heritage of woe has been ours for thousands 
of years. If punishment could reform, if it be a 
power by which the nature of wicked men can be 
so changed that they will loathe sin, and love and 
seek holiness, this earth of ours would long since 
have become the very paradise of God. But, after 
all our sufferings, the earth is still full of moral 
corruption. Just in those portions where there is 
most of woe, there is the most of iniquity; there 
are the habitations of cruelty. 

If we look at special sins which are followed by 
special and awful penalties, we learn again that 
punishment does not reform men, much less trans- 
form them. The man given to lust suffers the 
most excruciating agony, with the full knowledge 
that his pain is directly caused by his sin; but, 
after his paroxysms of suffering are over, he 
goes again to his transgression and shame. The 
drunkard suffers again and again all the horrors 
of delirium ; he is overwhelmed with fears ; he toss- 
es himself to and fro on his bed ; the beaded sweat 
stands on his forehead ; he believes that serpents 
twine themselves about his body and fasten their 
poisonous fangs in his bloated cheeks ; he knows 

[113] 



Science and Prayer 

that this is the awful penalty for his love of the 
cup, but it works no reformation. He still rises 
early in the morning to seek strong drink. In 
spite of all his woe he clings to his sin with un- 
relaxing grip. 

If we turn to the world's prison houses we see 
how baseless is the notion that men can be morally 
renovated by punishment. The Egyptian, the 
Assyrian, the Greek and Eoman dungeons were 
the synonym of horror. Pains and penalties 
were meted out without mercy. But not a single 
prisoner among all the thousands that suffered 
amid damps and chills, in chains and stocks, 
was ever transformed in moral character by 
his fearful punishment. In fact, criminals in 
the prisons of Christian nations have been mor- 
ally transformed only by the Gospel. Not pun- 
ishment, but the revelation of divine love and 
truth in Christ has lifted many of them up out 
of sin, and brought them into fellowship with 
God. 

It is true, however, that punishment some- 
times holds evil propensities temporarily in 
check, until the powers of love touch the heart and 
transform the character. Thus judicious punish- 
ment, meted out in kindness to children, may re- 
strain the evil which is struggling to assert itself 
until the love of guardian or parent shall, through 
the truth, work the requisite moral change. But 
even in the family, when there is punishment 
without love, that punishment, instead of working 
reformation, only hardens and confirms the young 

[114] 



Eternal Punishment 

culprits in sin. The punishment, itself, utterly 
fails to renovate the moral nature. 

In fact, punishment in and of itself was never 
intended to reform men. It does hold tempora- 
rily in check out-cropping crime, for the safety 
of society. It does, as we have said, for the time 
being restrain evil propensities, till truth and love 
may touch and save the erring; but its primary 
object is to satisfy the demands of justice. This 
fact underlies and shapes the criminal codes of 
all nations. In these laws certain punishments 
are prescribed for culprits. Those who framed 
the laws have not sought, by the prescribed pen- 
alties, to secure the reformation of criminals. 
Law has nothing to do with that. Legislators, 
therefore, have asked, simply, what does justice 
demand? And they have attached to criminal 
laws such penalties as in the judgment of man- 
kind will meet and satisfy the claims of justice, 
pure and simple. 

That this is the primary object of punishment 
becomes clear when an entire community is 
aroused by some dark and bloody deed. With 
one voice the multitude cries out for justice to 
be meted out to the criminal. The throng is not 
blood-thirsty; it is made up of upright citizens. 
It is not moved by personal vindictiveness ; not 
one in a thousand, perhaps, has ever known the 
culprit. There is only one solution of such a 
problem. The sense of justice implanted by God 
in every human heart is aroused, expresses itself, 
puts forth its majestic and awful demand, and the 

[115] 



Science and Prayer 

speedy and condign punishment of the criminal 
by the courts alone will satisfy it. 

That the fundamental aim of punishment is 
not the reformation of the transgressor, but the 
satisfaction of justice, is clear from the sufferings 
of Christ. He could not be transformed in char- 
acter, for he was sinless. He suffered for our in- 
iquities. He took on himself through sympathy 
the penalty due to our transgression. In this 
most conspicuous example of suffering in the uni- 
verse, we see that reformation was not the aim of 
Christ's measureless agony. 

If these positions are true — and who can gain- 
say them? — when wicked men have gone to their 
own place, we cannot reasonably expect that 
their sufferings will ever work any transforma- 
tion in their characters. Punishment reforms no 
man here on earth; this is not its design; it cer- 
tainly will not, then, reform any man who, in hell, 
has become vastly more depraved, and far more 
obdurate in transgression than he was in this life. 
Men, neither here nor hereafter, can ever be tor- 
tured into holiness. 

But, men have asked, will there not be in the 
future another dispensation of love by which God 
will reach and save the lost? If there could be, 
who would not rejoice? but the Scriptures 
drop not the slightest hint of any such dispensa- 
tion ; in fact, they contain intimations to the con- 
trary. The Spirit revealed to John in Patmos 
that the wicked shall finally become fixed in sin. 
It shall be said concerning them, "He that is un- 

[116] 



Eternal Punishment 

just, let him be unjust still, and he that is filthy, 
let him be filthy still. ' * Christ in the parable of 
the rich man and Lazarus, presents to us the 
saved and the lost in colloquy with each other. 
The lost Dives does not ask to be delivered from 
the tormenting flame. He evidently had no hope 
of that ; perhaps he did not desire it ; but he asked 
only for a drop of water to cool his tongue, for 
some slight alleviation of his woe. Thus the 
Great Teacher intimates that for the wicked who 
go to their own place there is no hope of salva- 
tion. But in reference to some of the lost, he 
gives us more than an intimation; he declares 
positively that whoever shall blaspheme against 
the Spirit, or shall speak against the Holy Spirit, 
shall never be forgiven, "neither in this world, 
nor in that which is to come. ' ' 

But if there should be another dispensation 
of love, how could it avail, especially for those 
who, in spite of all the gracious influences of the 
Gospel, have gone from Christian lands to their 
own place? Could they have, in any other dis- 
pensation, a grander exhibition of God's love 
than they now possess? God now reveals him- 
self to them in Christ. And Christ is "the bright- 
ness of God's glory and the express image of his 
person." In Christ "dwells all the fulness of 
the Godhead bodily." Here we have the infinite 
God made manifest; here we have infinite love 
revealed. Man can never have more than that. 
And this infinite love is manifested now by 
Christ's voluntary sacrifice of himself on the cross 

[117] 



Science and Prayer 

that he might save his enemies. Could infinite love 
ever display itself in a manner more tender and 
touching? If men are not won to God by it now, 
will they be, can they be, when in hell they have 
reached a pitch of depravity unknown here on 
earth? If they hear not Christ now, neither will 
they be persuaded, if in some future dispen- 
sation, God should manifest himself to them, 
through Christ, in their world of woe. 

But this conclusion, to which we are inevita- 
bly brought by reasoning based on facts re- 
vealed to all in natural law, is confirmed by the 
clear utterance of God's word. We need not 
spread out the passages which teach the doctrine 
of future retribution. They are familiar to all, 
and they are so plain that a school-boy could 
not mistake their certain import. Christ, in the 
twenty-fifth of Matthew, brings before us the 
scene of the general judgment, and says concern- 
ing the wicked, "These shall go away into eternal 
punishment. ' ' But men, troubled by this doc- 
trine and by this text, have said that the Greek 
word translated "eternal" does not mean unend- 
ing duration, but simply a long period. It is true 
that the noun, from which the adjective, here 
translated " eternal,' ' was derived, was some- 
times used by Greek writers to designate a limited 
period. But the period so designated was always 
indefinite ; its limits were never indicated ; so the 
word naturally came to designate the thought, as 
nearly as we can conceive it, of eternity, which is 
of course unlimited. And in that sense it is often 

[118] 



Eternal Punishment 

used by Greek writers. And the adjective trans- 
lated "eternal" in the passage under review, they 
almost invariably used to express the idea of un- 
ending duration. So that Liddell and Scott, who 
have given to us a Greek lexicon, which for a long 
period has been regarded as a standard, give to 
this word only two definitions, "lasting' ' and 
" eternal.' ' All really eminent Greek lexicog- 
raphers define it in the same way. There is 
not a stronger word in the Greek language with 
which to express the thought of unending dura- 
tion. It is used more than a score of times in the 
New Testament to express the unending bliss of 
the righteous. Christ not only says the wicked 
"shall go away into eternal punishment, ' ' but 
also the "righteous into life eternal. ,, Would 
not the evangelist, wishing to set forth the un- 
ending blessedness of the redeemed, naturally 
have chosen the strongest word in the language 
for the purpose? When the author of the epistle 
to the Hebrews wishes to set forth the eternity of 
God the Spirit, he writes, "The Eternal (aionios) 
Spirit. ' * If there had been any stronger word in 
the Greek language to express unending duration, 
would not the writer have employed it? Would 
he have used a word of doubtful import when he 
wished to express the eternity of the Spirit? 
Yet this same word is used again and again to set 
forth the duration of the punishment of the 
wicked. 

In the Eevelation the eternity of God is set 
forth at least five times by the phrase, made up 

[119] 



Science and Prayer 

of the word in dispute, l i forever and ever. ' ' Thus 
an angel ' i lifted up his hand to heaven and swore 
by him that liveth forever and ever, ' ' who created 
heaven and earth and sea. If any stronger word 
could have been found by which the fact of un- 
ending duration could have been expressed, it 
would here have been employed. No doubtful 
term would have been used to set forth the dura- 
tion of the life of God. But the same word, the 
same phrase is used in this same book to set forth 
the duration of the punishment of the wicked, 
"the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever 
and ever. ' ' And so, at great length, we might go 
on adding one decisive proof to another. 

But we are not in our biblical proof shut up to 
this class of passages. The eternal punishment of 
the wicked is taught in language the meaning of 
which the most critical and captious would not at- 
tempt to evade. Christ himself warned men 
against stumbling into sin. He said that it would 
be better to cut off a hand or a foot, or to pluck 
out an eye, if these members of our body should 
cause us to sin, rather than go unmanned into hell 
"where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." Jesus the embodiment of love and 
mercy, in a few short sentences, speaks five times 
of the unquenchable fire, and three times of the 
never-dying worm. No matter how we may ex- 
plain the metaphors, the awful fact is repeated 
again and again that the torment of the lost is 
unending. The fact is stated so clearly, so un- 
equivocally, that one must either receive it as the 

[120] 



Eternal Punishment 

truth, or else reject the teaching of Jesus Christ. 

"We see, then, that just as God speaks through 
natural law, he speaks in the Scriptures. We 
have not two voices, but one, speaking in two dif- 
ferent spheres but uttering the same truth. 

Yet, it is asked, Is such a doctrine in harmony 
with the benevolence of God. We have seen that 
men sin voluntarily. God warns them by the 
laws of their own being against it, and still more 
emphatically in the inspired word. He points out 
to them the fearful consequences of transgres- 
sion. He opens heaven before them and invites 
them to enter. He promises them forgiveness 
for their past transgressions. He entreats them 
in love to be saved. But they utterly dis- 
regard every warning and solicitation. They 
choose the path of sin; they go voluntarily to 
their own place. Through the maintenance of 
God's righteous laws, through the laws of their 
own being, they suffer. To maintain those 
laws will manifestly be the highest, broadest 
benevolence, when we take into our view the 
whole universe and all of God's creatures. If 
God should not maintain his own laws, then 
there would be an end of righteousness, and the 
whole universe would become one vast hell. 

Nor is there any greater difficulty in recon- 
ciling future and eternal punishment with the 
benevolence of God, than in reconciling the suf- 
ferings of this present life with his benevolence. 
And men are usually quite ready to admit that 
the sufferings of wicked men here are just. 

[121] 



Science and Prayer 

Men sin, and so men suffer. When wicked men 
go to their own place, they will continue to sin; 
hence they will justly continue to suffer. If they 
voluntarily continue to sin forever, they will 
justly and reasonably suffer forever. 

But are men tormented eternally in literal 
flames, in a lake of fire and brimstone? We do 
not so understand the Scriptures. Heaven is 
set before us by material imagery; it is our 
Father's house in which are many mansions. 
It is a city of precious stones, with solid gates 
of pearl, and streets of gold. All the most pre- 
cious things of the earth are gathered together, 
and wrought into a resplendent city, in order to 
give us some faint notion of the ineffable 
blessedness and joy of the redeemed. So on 
the other hand we have hell. It is outer dark- 
ness, tormenting flame, unquenchable fire, a 
worm that dies not, a lake of fire and brimstone ; 
the most fearful things are seized upon to 
represent the suffering and woe of the lost. 
As men in this life suffer inflictions from with- 
out, we need not affirm that no such inflictions 
are meted out to the lost who go to their own 
place; but the agonies of hell must be pre- 
eminently within the soul. If this removes 
from the idea of hell much of its grossness, it 
by no means robs hell of its horror. The most 
exquisite agony that men suffer now is within 
the soul. A man might well prefer the pain 
arising from thrusting his hand into the flame, 
to the agony of remorse. The never-dying worm 

[122] 



Eternal Punishment 

may be never-ending remorse. A material, lit- 
eral hell, to any reflecting mind, is far less fear- 
ful than one whose fires are kindled within the 
spirit here on earth, and being evermore fed by 
sin, burn on eternally. 

If it be said that this is a dreadful punish- 
ment, we answer that sin, which evokes it, is a 
dreadful evil. Sin has brought upon men all 
the ills under which they groan. Sin evokes 
God's wrath; sin swept away the race by flood, 
and burned up the cities of the plain by fire ; sin 
caused Christ to sweat great drops of blood 
in Gethsemane, and overwhelmed Him with the 
agonies of the cross. And it is a false and su- 
perficial view of sin, which leads many not only 
to reject the doctrines of the cross, but also the 
scriptural doctrine of the future punishment of 
the wicked. 

But the larger part of the race will be saved 
through Christ. All, both in heathen and Chris- 
tian lands, who die before they come to the 
years of understanding are redeemed. More 
than half of all the generations of men have 
died in infancy. We must add to these the mil- 
lions who have believed in Christ. Then the 
Bible assures us that the day will come when 
"The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the 
Lord as the waters cover the sea." It will not 
then be necessary for one to say to his neigh- 
bor, "Know ye the Lord, for all shall know 
him, from the least unto the greatest." Then 
all, or nearly all, the generations of men shall, 

[123] 



Science and Prayer 

in unbroken phalanxes, enter into heaven. So 
that a great man has said — we give his thought, 
not his words — that, when the history of re- 
demption shall have been completed, the num- 
ber of the lost, compared with the innumerable 
throng of the redeemed, will be like those within 
the jails of any well-ordered community com- 
pared with the entire population without. It is 
thus that the Scriptures fill us with hope concern- 
ing the redemption of the vast majority of man- 
kind that have lived, and shall live on this earth. 



[124] 



PEEMILLENARIANISM 



PKEMILLENARIANISM 

All true believers confidently expect that at 
some future period the nations of the earth will be 
converted to Christ. But, as to the time when 
this shall be accomplished, and the means by 
which the grand result is to be secured, men 
widely differ. Probably the vast majority of the 
church expect its achievement during the present 
dispensation by the preaching of the Gospel, but 
not a few teach with unusual positiveness, not to 
say dogmatism, that we are not to anticipate this 
glorious event before another dispensation has 
been ushered in, for which the present is simply 
preparatory. They call that anticipated period 
the Millennium. During the present era, they ef- 
firm, that the world is continually to increase in 
wickedness until it is ripe for judgment ; that the 
Jews now scattered over the world are to return 
to Judea and rebuild Jerusalem and its temple; 
then Christ is to come the second time and take 
up his abode at Jerusalem. The holy dead are to 
be raised with glorified bodies, while living believ- 
ers are to be clothed simply with immortal bodies ; 
the anti-Christian powers are to be destroyed and 
Satan is to be bound. This earth is to be fitted up 
for the everlasting home of the redeemed. The 
Spirit is to be poured out as never before, and 

[127] 



Science and Prayer 

the world converted to Christ. Prophecies like 
Isaiah 2, 2-3* are to be literally interpreted. 
Jerusalem and mount Zion are to be exalted, be- 
cause Christ personally dwells in the one, and on 
the other. All nations are to hasten thither to be- 
hold and acknowledge him as their King. 

We have purposely kept back in this brief state- 
ment some of the grosser features of this theory, 
lest it might be supposed that we had caricatured 
it. It should also be said that the literalists whose 
views we have endeavored to present, do not agree 
with one another in minor details; some things 
that are received by one are rejected by another; 
but they generally agree, that when the prophets 
speak of the increase and exaltation of Jerusalem, 
they mean the city of Jerusalem, and not some- 
thing which it represents, and that the peoples of 
the globe will not be converted during the present 
dispensation. 

During the past few years so much zeal has 
been expended in promulgating these views 
through the pulpit and the press, that it has be- 
come necessary in expounding the Scriptures, to 
state and refute them. We are also urged to 
such a course by the fact that many of those who 
adopt them no longer believe that the world is to 

* 2. And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain 
of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the moun- 
tains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall 
now unto it. 

3. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go 
up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; 
and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: 
for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord 
from Jerusalem. 

[128] 



Premillenarianism 

be subjugated to Jesus Christ by the preaching of 
the gospel. In some instances they openly ex- 
press their contempt for the efforts now being 
put forth to disciple heathen nations — believing 
all such efforts to be futile. 

Let us then observe, first, that Jerusalem, mount 
Zion and the Lord's house, in the typical passage 
above referred to, represent the church of Christ. 
The language of the prophecies positively forbids 
their literal interpretation. Things are affirmed 
of Jerusalem, mount Zion and the Lord's house 
which could not be naturally predicated of any 
literal city, mountain, or temple. Perhaps not 
even the literalist would affirm that what Isaiah 
and Micah both predict concerning mount Moriah 
is actually to take place ; that it is to be really 
pushed upward from the crust of the earth, till it 
becomes the head of the mountains, or until it 
towers above all the mountains of the earth. But, 
if this part of the prophecy is ideal, why not the 
rest? Grant that it is ideal, while the rest is lit- 
eral, then all nations, like a mighty river, are to 
flow into Jerusalem, in Palestine, which is a phys- 
ical impossibility. Look also at a cognate pas- 
sage, at the close of Zechariah's prophecy, 14: 
3-5, 8-11, 16-19. If this is to be literally inter- 
preted, then, the mount of Olives is to be cleft 
asunder ; two veritable rivers are to flow in oppo- 
site directions from Jerusalem; mount Moriah is 
not only to be literally lifted up, but all other 
mountains of the earth are to sink down into 
plains, and, under severe penalties, all nations 

[129] 



Science and Prayer 

are to offer bloody sacrifices in Jerusalem. Such 
an interpretation would be monstrous, reinstating 
the bloody ritual that Christ abolished; yet it 
seems to be demanded by the theory of the 
literalist. 

But we notice again, that not only the language 
of these prophecies, but also the teachings of the 
New Testament set aside such an interpretation. 
If inspired apostles plainly speak contrary to 
these literalists, there is an end of controversy. 
If we understand them, and their utterances seem 
to be remarkably clear, they assume as a settled 
fact, that Jerusalem, mount Zion and the house of 
God are representative symbols of the church; 
though a noted writer of the present day declares 
that ' ' they are not anywhere in the sacred volume 
declared to stand for it. ' ' But it may be, that the 
beasts and images of Daniel and the trumpets of 
the Apocalypse so engrossed his attention, that 
he overlooked the simpler, clearer declarations of 
Paul and James. The former, writing to the 
Galatians, and evidently having no fear of being 
misunderstood even by those unsophisticated Gen- 
tile believers, speaks of Jerusalem which is above, 
that was free from the bondage of the law to 
which Jerusalem then existing was subject, and 
also declares her to be the mother of us all. Is 
not this the church of Christ, in which the divine 
Spirit dwells, and that brings forth children be- 
gotten from above by the Spirit? In entire har- 
mony with this exposition, the apostle at the close 
of his epistle, invokes mercy on the Israel of 
God. 

[130] 



Premillenarianism 

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews, writ- 
ing to Jewish converts, who, under the pressure 
of persecution, were tempted to forsake their pro- 
fession for their former Judaism, assured them, 
that while the former dispensation had its Sinai 
with its flame, and blackness, and darkness, and 
tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice 
of words ; the present dispensation has its mount 
Zion, and the city of the living God, the heavenly 
Jerusalem, and the general assembly and church 
of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and 
he distinctly declared, that to this mount they had 
already come. Nor ought we to overlook the ob- 
vious reference of Paul to the temple, when he 
wrote to his brethren of Ephesus that they were 
' ' built on the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
corner-stone, in whom all the building fitly framed 
together, groweth unto an holy temple in the 
Lord ; in whom ye also are builded together for an 
habitation of God through the Spirit.' ' He in- 
structed the Corinthians, also, that they were the 
temple of the living God, and that the Holy Spirit 
dwelt in them. Peter is still more specific. He 
calls believers living stones, of which is built up a 
spiritual house, and this house is an holy priest- 
hood, that offers up spiritual sacrifices which are 
acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ. This 
language is too clearly linked with the temple of 
the Old Testament, with its indwelling Shekinah, 
to be mistaken. It assumes that the temple with 
its Shekinah is the symbol of believers as a body ; 

[131] 



Science and Prayer 

it assumes this as if it were a most common and 
familiar thought of the apostolic church ; and this 
is evidence, vastly stronger than if the New Tes- 
tament had declared it in the most formal, explicit 
manner. 

But James is not a whit behind the very chief 
of the apostles in his testimony on this point. 
When the church at Jerusalem, with its elders, as- 
sembled to confer with the apostles as to whether 
circumcision should be required of the Gentile 
converts of Antioch, James arose and addressed 
the assembly. He referred to a speech of 
Peter 's ; — ' i Simeon, ' ' said he, * ' hath declared 
how God, at the first, did visit the Gentiles, to take 
out of them a people for his name, and to this 
agree the words of the prophets.' ' He uses the 
plural, as though several of the prophets had 
spoken in like manner; yet quotes only one, as a 
specimen of the whole. " After this I will return 
and will build again, or rebuild the tabernacle or 
house of David, which is fallen down ; and I will 
build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it 
up ; that the residue of men, others than the Jews, 
might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles 
upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, 
who doeth all these things. ' ' Acts 15 : 16-17. 
James not only understood Amos' words as ful- 
filled under the present dispensation, but also 
that the conversion of the Gentiles was the re- 
building of David's house, which began with 
Christ and his disciples. Both converted Jews 
and Gentiles were the material of which this 

[132] 



Premillenarianism 

house was composed. Its grandeur will culminate 
when all peoples are gathered into it. Both Amos 
and James, then — the former under the old, the 
latter under the new, dispensation — meant by 
the tabernacle, or house of David, the church of 
Christ. But the Premillenarians say that it 
never means that. There is evidently a mistake 
somewhere. 

It is equally clear, also, from the spirituality of 
the present dispensation, that these prophecies 
will not admit of a literal interpretation. There 
has been a progress during the history of redemp- 
tion, from that which was gross and sensuous, to 
that which is more spiritual. We see this when 
we compare the different epochs of miracles. 
Those, in the time of Moses, were mainly retribu- 
tive, and wrought in the material and animal crea- 
tions. In the day of Elijah and Elisha, a major- 
ity of miracles were beneficent, and a greater num- 
ber were wrought in the persons of men, than in 
the time of Israel's lawgiver; but Christ's mira- 
cles were all beneficent, except, perhaps, in a sin- 
gle instance, the withering of the fig-tree ; most of 
them were miracles of healing; many of them 
were double, the outward and physical healing 
being only the symbol of the inward and spiritual. 
When he said to the leper, "Be thou clean," the 
leprosy of both body and soul was removed ; when 
he opened men 's physical eyes, he sometimes also 
granted spiritual sight. But he taught his dis- 
ciples that they should work mightier miracles 
than he did — miracles wholly removed from the 

[133] 



Science and Prayer 

physical world, because he went to the Father. 
The Spirit being poured out as the result of his 
exaltation, they, by the preaching of the Word, 
should be instrumental in repeating throughout 
the world and in all ages, that chief of miracles — 
the renewal of the carnal heart. Thus, that 
which began in wrath in the material world, cul- 
minated in mercy within the domain of man's 
spirit. 

We see progress of the same kind in worship. 
Under the old dispensation, God visibly revealed 
himself to men in a cloud or pillar of fire, or in the 
Shekinah over the mercy-seat. He commanded 
his worshippers to approach him with bloody 
sacrifices, to burn portions of them and to feast 
on the remainder. Blood was to be sprinkled on 
the altar or to be poured over its sides. The 
outer court of the tabernacle or temple must have 
presented a scene as repulsive as a slaughter- 
house. 

But when Christ came, these grosser forms of 
worship passed away. Sacrifices were no longer 
needed since their antitype had put away sin by 
the sacrifice of himself. Jehovah no longer dwelt 
within the temple at Jerusalem, but took up his 
abode in every contrite heart. Worship still has 
its forms, but when they are in harmony with the 
spirit of the New Testament, they are outwardly 
simple and unimposing. No oblation is required 
except obedience and praise. The true worship- 
per worships in spirit and in truth. How vast 
the progress towards the spiritual since the day 

[134] 



Premillenarianism 

when Jehovah dwelt in curtains on the brow of 
Moriah, and Jewish altars streamed with blood 
and smoked with consuming flesh ! If now we are 
to interpret the prophecies concerning Jerusalem 
and mount Zion literally, men are destined to 
leave the spiritual, to which we have attained, 
and go back to the material and sensuous. Christ, 
who is now exalted and glorified, is to dwell once 
more on Moriah ; worship is to be localized. The 
nations are to go up to Jerusalem to gaze on the 
form of their King. Instead of advancing, the 
world is to go back to Judaism. If we follow 
the interpretation of the Premillenarians there 
seems to be no escape from this conclusion. 

If it is asked, why such imagery was employed 
by the prophets to express the fact of the increase 
of the church, a tyro in scriptural knowledge 
might answer, — It was the only language that a 
Jew could understand. Jerusalem with its tem- 
ple was the central point of his theocracy. The 
law went forth from Jehovah who dwelt there. 
From the Holy of Holies proceeded the power 
that overthrew the enemies of his nation. To 
represent the mount around which the hopes of 
Israel clustered, as exalted above all others, at 
least expressed to the Jew, the absolute suprem- 
acy of his people ; to represent all nations as flow- 
ing unto it, expressed their willing subjection to 
Jehovah, his creator and lawgiver, whose pres- 
ence was all that made the temple truly glorious. 
If such imagery did not reveal to his mind the 
full import of the prophetic message, then nothing 

[135] 



Science and Prayer 

could have revealed it. The difficulty was not, 
however, in the language employed, but in his 
spiritual perception, and the position which he 
occupied in reference to the fulfillment of the 
prophecy, which lay in the distant future. The 
language of Isaiah, already quoted, carries us 
beyond the period of Israel's exclusiveness, — be- 
yond the narrow notions of Jesus 's disciples be- 
fore the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, — 
beyond the destruction of Jerusalem and its tem- 
ple. Guided by inspired apostles, we find that 
the prophet by this Jewish imagery, has present- 
ed to us Christ's church as she will appear 
some day still in the future. She is to be spir- 
itually exalted. She will become so conspicu- 
ous as to attract the attention of men in every 
quarter of the globe, and all nations like the 
waters of a broad, deep river shall flow unto 
her. 

We come now to notice, in the second place, that 
the exaltation of the church and the conversion of 
the nations of the earth, will take place during the 
present dispensation. First Isaiah says, "It 
shall come to pass in the last days." That the 
same thing is uniformly meant in the Scriptures, 
by the last days, no careful interpreter will af- 
firm ; yet, that it generally designates the present 
dispensation is unquestionably true. When the 
dying Jacob blessed his sons, he pointed out that 
which should befall them in the last days. He 
seems to have used the words indefinitely, mean- 
ing by them simply hereafter ; yet in the blessing 

[136] 



Pre millenarianism 

pronounced on Judah, the words are seen to in- 
clude the present era; for the patriarch spoke of 
Shiloh unto whom the gathering of the people 
should be. Balaam in his prophecy, Num. 24: 
14-19, clearly designates the present era. He saw 
a star rise out of Jacob and to it dominion was 
given. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, quoting 
the substance of a prophecy of Joel, spoke of the 
present period as the last days. "It shall come 
to pass in the last days that I will pour out my 
Spirit on all flesh.' ' (Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:17.) 
The apostle at least, taught that the prophecy 
then began to be fulfilled. The author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews says, that God hath 
spoken unto us in these last days by his son; the 
time referred to in these words is too obvious 
for comment. If the phrase ever has any other 
meaning in the Scriptures, it is when there is no 
comparison, in the passage where it occurs, be- 
tween the past and present dispensations. It 
then refers, if found in the New Testament, to the 
closing season of the present era, as when James 
says, "Ye have heaped treasure together for the 
last days." There is not a particle of evidence 
that the words ever designated a period beyond 
the present. In the Old Testament they almost 
uniformly refer to the present dispensation as a 
whole. It then shall come to pass, according to 
Isaiah, under the present dispensation of the 
Spirit, that all nations shall press into the church 
of Christ. 

That the world will be converted through the 

[137] 



Science and Prayer 

preaching of the Gospel, during the present era, 
is taught also, by the general tenor of those proph- 
ecies, which portray the increase of the church. 
That there are some passages which it is difficult 
to harmonize with this view, perhaps all will ad- 
mit, but the great mass of scripture which refers 
to this subject gives a uniform testimony, which 
impresses ordinary Bible readers with like ideas. 
That men generally may be mistaken is admitted, 
but the great body of intelligent and careful scrip- 
ture readers usually have correct notions of what 
the Bible teaches concerning a topic like this, in 
reference to which the testimony is so abundant. 
The probability is strong that they do not err. 
When such men read a prophecy (Isa. 9) which 
declares that a child is born unto us, on whose 
shoulder rests the divine government, which being 
administered by him in justice, shall indefinitely 
increase — that his name is Wonderful, Counsel- 
lor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of 
Peace, and that his administration and the prom- 
ised increase cannot fail because the Lord of 
Hosts is filled with zeal to secure the ultimate tri- 
umph, they naturally conclude, since there is not 
in the passage the slightest indication to the 
contrary, that the birth of the King and the 
increase of his government belong to the same 
dispensation. 

They read of the same Eedeemer, coming forth 
as a branch from the roots of Jesse. (Isa. 11.) 
The Spirit of the Lord rest upon him. They 
perceive this to be in harmony with the words of 

[138] 



Premillenarianism 

his forerunner, who declared that the Spirit was 
given to him without measure. ( Jno. 3 : 34.) He 
overcomes his foes, and the final result is, that 
universal peace reigns on the earth, which is "full 
of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover 
the sea." Plain readers, possessing ordinary 
common sense, are led to suppose that, as the 
branch shooting out of Jacob's roots, is the be- 
ginning of the present dispensation, the earth 
filled with the knowledge of the Lord, will be its 
close. And when they find Paul quoting from 
the same prophecy in his Epistle to the Eomans, 
and showing the beginning of its fulfillment in 
his day, they are confirmed in their conclusion, for 
they perceive that he knew no dispensation after 
the present one, in which the nations are to be 
converted. 

Christ is again presented to them as the leader 
of the people. He shall call and Gentile nations 
that knew him not shall run unto him. (Isa. 55.) 
However incredible this may appear to man, the 
prophet declares it to be possible with God, for 
his thoughts are not as our thoughts, and the 
word that goes forth from his mouth shall not 
return unto him void, but will certainly accom- 
plish his purpose. The result shall be great joy 
and peace among the inhabitants of the earth. 
Their inward joy will become seemingly an out- 
ward reality, so that the mountains and the hills 
shall break forth into singing and all the trees 
of the field shall clap their hands. Yet, in this 
prophecy, thirsting men are invited to the waters 

[139] 



Science and Prayer 

of life. The unbelieving are warned to seek the 
Lord while he may be found, and on condition of 
obedience are assured of mercy and pardon. 
These things belong to the present dispensation; 
then why wrench the glorious result from its nat- 
ural connection and transfer it to some future 
dispensation? That is what a common reader 
cannot understand. 

The same Jesus who is represented in the deep- 
est humiliation, is presented almost in the same 
breath as sprinkling, purifying many nations. 
(Isa. 53.) He makes his soul an offering for sin 
and the necessary result is at once depicted by 
the prophet. He sees the fruit of his sufferings 
and is satisfied. He justifies many and, victori- 
ous over sin and Satan, divides the spoil snatched 
from his foes. The Father says to Christ, be- 
gotten by his resurrection from the dead, and set 
on the Holy Hill of Zion, "Ask of me, and I will 
give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and 
the uttermost parts of the earth for thy posses- 
sion.' ' (Ps. 2.) "He shall have dominion also 
from sea to sea and from the river unto the 
ends of the earth." (Ps. 72.) "For from the 
rising of the sun even to the going down of 
the same, my name shall be great among the 
Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be of- 
fered unto my name and a pure offering ; for my 
name shall be great among the heathen." (Mai. 
1.) This language clearly refers to the present 
dispensation; it is so decisive upon any fair in- 
terpretation of it, that if any man declares that 

[140] 



Premillenarianism 

it describes a period after the general resurrec- 
tion, he is bound to clear his assertion of every 
reasonable doubt. 

The New Testament is not so abundant in its 
testimony on this subject. Its writers received 
the Old Testament as God's word, and hence there 
was no necessity of augmenting evidence already 
so copious. It assumes the truth for which we 
contend. Its testimony, therefore, to a consider- 
able extent, is incidental, but all the stronger on 
that account. 

Would not any one naturally infer from the 
Lord's Prayer, that he expected the conversion of 
the world during the dispensation that he inau- 
gurated? He taught his disciples to pray, "Thy 
kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it 
is in Heaven." As this petition is intertwisted 
with others which can refer only to the present, 
and as Christ taught his followers to expect im- 
mediate answers to their prayers, saying, ' ' Every 
one that asketh receive th," the learner could not 
fail to understand that his Lord intended to teach 
that in answer to prayer, the kingdom of God 
would come during the present era. This impres- 
sion would be deepened by Christ's last discourse 
before his crucifixion, in which he promised the 
Spirit to convince or convict the world of sin, and 
assured his disciples, that whatsoever they asked 
in his name, should be granted to them. 

The impression made by his prayer is strength- 
ened by his parables. He represented the humble 
beginning of his kingdom by the mustard seed, 

[141] 



Science and Prayer 

whose branches, when it is grown, furnish a re- 
treat for the birds of the air. So his kingdom, at 
the beginning apparently insignificant, despised 
by men, shall in its maturity furnish grateful 
shelter for the nations. The literalist has been 
troubled with this parable, and has gravely 
taught, that the birds in the branches of the mus- 
tard tree, were unclean birds, representing the 
corruptions which creep into the church. This is 
a case of such rank, special pleading in interpre- 
tation, that to state it is to refute it. 

Christ also represents the hidden power within 
his kingdom, which causes its outward growth, 
by the leaven in the meal. As the leaven extends 
its influence from particle to particle, till the 
whole mass is permeated, so the power of the 
Gospel extends from heart to heart, until all na- 
tions are brought under its sway. Its working 
may not always be apparent, but it is aggressive 
and real. The kingdom of God will come, yet 
not by observation. But to avoid the manifest 
and cogent teaching of this parable, the Premil- 
lenarians tell us that leaven represents corrup- 
tion. So it does often, yet such a thought is in- 
admissible here. When the leaven of the Phar- 
isees is mentioned, it is the symbol of hypocrisy. 
This, Christ carefully states. But when he says, 
the kingdom of Heaven is like leaven, it is most 
unnatural to suppose that, without any explana- 
tion, he represents by it the corruptions of the 
church. The only point of comparison is between 
the silent, pervasive power of the leaven and that 
of the truth of the Gospel. 

[142] 



Premillenarianism 

But if this testimony is not sufficient to con- 
vince the most incredulous, there remains still 
stronger. Jesus, when the shadow of his cross 
began to fall upon him, said, "And I, if I be lifted 
up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. ' ' 
"This he said," writes John, "signifying what 
death he should die." Perhaps he included 
in the words, not only the manner of his death 
on a cross, but also the lifting of him up 
through the preaching of the Gospel before all 
nations, as the crucified Redeemer ; as Paul wrote 
to the Galatians, "Jesus Christ hath been evi- 
dently set forth, crucified among you." But 
whatever breadth of meaning may be legitimately 
found in the words, they teach that Christ by his 
death is to secure the allegiance of the nations. 
The declaration is most sweeping and clear. The 
thought is not presented in symbol or poetry, but 
in the plainest prose. It sounds as though 
Christ, already coming into the presence of his in- 
scrutable woe, condensed into one utterance, all 
the declarations of the old prophets concerning 
the coming glory of his reign. His words can 
only refer to this dispensation, of which he was 
the bright and morning star. He does not say, 
when I come the second time to judge the world, 
but, if I be lifted up on the cross, I will draw all 
men unto me. From the very point of my sup- 
posed defeat, shall proceed my complete, my uni- 
versal triumph. 

In suggestive harmony with these words pro- 
nounced before his crucifixion, after his resurrec- 

[143] 



Science and Prayer 

tion, he said to more than five hundred disciples, 
assembled in Galilee, "Go ye and make disciples 
of all the nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy- 
Spirit ; teaching them to observe all things, what- 
soever I commanded you. And lo, I am with you 
always, even unto the end of the world.' ' Did 
Jesus awaken false expectations in his followers? 
Did he send his disciples on a bootless errand? 
Did he straightly command them to disciple all 
nations when he knew that by the use of the 
means put into their hands no such result was 
to be reached? Perish the thought! This last 
command of Jesus blazes like a sun amid his 
utterances, revealing in the clearest light, what 
he expected would be achieved by the preaching 
of the truth. Within its light all Premillenarian 
interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy, of the 
meaning of images, horns, trumpets and beasts, 
are quenched like tapers amid the dazzling splen- 
dor of noonday. 

As Christ taught, so taught the apostles, whom 
he inspired. A passage in the prophecy of Joel 
predicts a vast increase of the Church. A noted 
writer of our day says, that it is to be fulfilled 
after the second advent of Christ. Peter at Pen- 
tecost said, that it was fulfilled then. Whom 
shall we follow? An inspired apostle, or an unin- 
spired, self-sufficient man? When the Jews at 
Antioch, in Pisidia, rejected Paul's message, he 
said, "Lo, we turn to the Gentiles, for so hath the 
Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be 

[144] 



Premillenarianism 

a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for 
salvation unto the ends of the earth.' ' (Isa. 49: 
6, Acts 13: 47.) The apostle quotes from a pas- 
sage of Isaiah, which represents kings and princes 
worshipping the Lord, and men from the most 
distant parts of the earth flocking into the church. 
No impartial reader could fail to see that Paul 
supposed that the prophecy was already begin- 
ning to be fulfilled, and that it referred only to the 
present era. Is it not safe to follow Paul? In 
the eleventh of Eomans, he declares that Israel 
will continue in her present blindness only " Until 
the fulness of the Gentiles comes in," and then 
the Jews shall receive the Gospel. So all Israel 
shall be saved. He represents that the converted 
Jews will become most important agents in saving 
the Gentile world. There is not a hint dropped by 
him that this is to take place under some future 
dispensation. His entire language only finds a 
natural explanation in referring it to the present 
era. It cannot, without great violence, have any 
other reference. It is clear that he knew nothing 
of the views to which we object. How admirably 
his prophecy harmonizes with the present condi- 
tion of the Jews, scattered throughout all nations. 
Why have they not amalgamated with the na- 
tions \ Has God kept them distinct in order to 
lead them back to Judea, where they may build 
their temple and attempt to restore an abolished 
ritual? Is it not a grander thought, and one 
more in consonance with the spirit of the Gospel, 
to say, with Paul, that they are finally to be 

[145] 



Science and Prayer 

brought into the church of Christ, and then, in 
every nation, whither they have been scattered, 
and where God has kept them distinct, they are 
to proclaim, with unwonted zeal, the Messiah, 
whom they have so long rejected. This they 
could do, without the labor of learning foreign 
languages, for, as a people, they have all lan- 
guages. They have amassed, with a cunning and 
intrigue, which seems to have flowed down to them 
from their father Jacob, vast wealth. But their 
own scriptures declare that the gold and silver 
are the Lord's, and, at last, they will be poured 
into his treasury. This predicted ministry will 
be to the Gentiles, says Paul, life from the dead. 

With this agrees the Revelation. John, in his 
vision, heard voices in Heaven, before the scene 
of the Judgment was unveiled, saying, "The 
kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of 
our Lord, and of his Christ ; and he shall reign 
forever and ever." (Rev. 11 : 15.) 

This direct testimony of Scripture is confirmed 
by the fact that the church is presented to us in 
the prophecies as a development. Christ is its 
central figure and around him as Prophet, and 
Priest, and King, his followers are gathered. He 
is first despised, then greatly honored. His sub- 
jects are few at the beginning, at last all nations 
bow to his sceptre. 

In these prophetic pictures of his unfolding 
kingdom, there is no intimation that his universal 
sway is separated from the beginning of his work 
by any great convulsion like that which must at- 

[146] 



Premillenarianism 

tend his second coming. Its development seems 
to be as uninterrupted as the unfolding of a bud 
into the flower and the fruit. Yet these same 
prophecies do distinctly announce the beginning 
of the present dispensation. They disclose the 
birth and death of Christ, proclaim his fore-run- 
ner, and the abolition of the rites of the first dis- 
pensation. But the ushering in of the present 
era was not attended with such startling phenom- 
ena, as are to attend the second coming of Christ. 
Even the shepherds around Bethlehem would not 
have known that Christ was born, if the angels 
had not announced it to them. But when Christ 
comes for judgment, it will be with ten thousand 
of angels and with the sound of a trumpet, and 
every eye shall see him. If then the conversion 
of all nations, which these prophecies announce, 
is to succeed the second coming, would not that 
event have been pointed out! If the birth of 
Christ was foretold by Israel's prophets, would 
not his second coming have been announced, 
which, according to the Premillenarians, is alone 
to secure that for which he laid down his life? 

Moreover, we must not fail to notice, that this 
predicted increase of the church has in part taken 
place. Notwithstanding the church has con- 
tended with manifold corruptions within her own 
bosom, and has breasted a storm of hurtling 
arrows from without during almost every step of 
her progress, yet Christ's promise has proved 
true in the past, as it will in the future, that the 
"gates of Hell shall not prevail against her." 

[147] 



Science and Prayer 

She has grappled with every form of opposition, 
and her pathway has often been crimsoned with 
the blood of her martyrs, yet she is mightier to- 
day than ever before. She never was so full of 
hope — never so confident of success, as at the 
present hour. If these prophecies of her increase 
and power have been fulfilled in part, shall we not 
receive this as the earnest of the future, as the 
first ripe ears of her universal harvest? 

With this increase of numbers and expansion 
of power, there has been also a development of 
doctrine. The sacred Canon closed, as to its let- 
ter, with the Apocalypse. To it no one is to add, 
from it no one is to subtract ; but he has read the 
history of the church to little purpose, who has 
not discovered a constant unfolding of the hidden 
meaning of scripture so that the written word has 
adjusted itself with marvelous facility to every 
new phase of civilization. The doctrines of God's 
word are correlated with our race. Development 
in the one, has been speedily registered in the life 
of the other. Every new conception or phase of 
doctrine has soon been reproduced in society. So 
that the church in the past, through the unfolding 
energy of her doctrines, has sooner or later freed 
herself from accumulated corruptions to enter 
with new and greater power on her sublime mis- 
sion of saving a world. The reformation of the 
sixteenth century taught the world, for the first 
time, what hidden might had slumbered in the 
doctrine of justification by faith. The reforma- 
tion of 1740 in our own land, sprung up amid 

[148] 



Premillenarianism 

churches that had been corrupted by an unregen- 
erated membership, so that when Whitefield 
preached that men must be born again, he 
seemed to be uttering new and startling truth to 
the gathering multitudes, and the church was then 
made to feel as never before, the inherent power 
of the doctrine of the new birth. Is this develop- 
ment to cease ? Has doctrine reached the limit of 
its power? Will it from this time fail to adjust 
itself to the unfolding exigencies of the nations? 
Has God's truth, like a frail taper, burned itself 
out, so that the predicted increase of the church 
will cease, and the nations wax worse and worse, 
until a new dispensation has been inaugurated? 
The notion is monstrous! This development is 
God's onward march to the final redemption of all 
nations. 

It is however objected, that the Scriptures teach 
that in the last days of the present dispensation, 
universal corruption will prevail. Though the 
passages usually adduced as teaching this are but 
few, yet our time will not permit any extended 
analysis of them, and if we were able to present 
the keenest and most exhaustive analysis, it might 
be of little or no value, since some of the passages 
are unfulfilled prophecies of such a nature as to 
baffle the most penetrating interpreter. Every 
wise expositor in such a case will regard his con- 
clusions as somewhat problematical; yet it may 
not be amiss to hint briefly at some principles 
which ought to guide us in reference to the pas- 
sages referred to. 

[149] 



Science and Prayer 

1. It is an acknowledged law of interpretation, 
and also the dictate of good sense, that the few 
are to be expounded in harmony with the many. 
We have seen that a very large majority of the 
passages that refer to the conversion of the world 
teach that it is to take place during the present 
era. If a few do not seem to harmonize with such 
a conclusion, they by no means invalidate it. If 
we cannot interpret them in harmony with the 
general sweep of prophecy, we must conclude 
that we do not yet understand them. New truths 
are being evolved from God's word, by the con- 
flicts and experiences of God's people, and by the 
teachings of the Spirit, and these passages may 
belong to those things which we know not now, 
but shall know hereafter. 

2. If scriptural testimony seems to be as to 
quantity about equally divided, that which is clear 
and unmistakable must take precedence of that 
which is enigmatical and doubtful. Such a dec- 
laration as that of Christ, that being crucified 
he will draw all men unto him, which is so plain, 
that the wayfaring man, though he were a fool, 
could not err concerning it, ought to have vastly 
greater weight in determining what is to take 
place through the preaching of the Gospel, than 
the prophecy of Paul concerning the man of sin, 
that no one yet understands, or probably can 
understand. 

3. We must carefully discriminate between in- 
dividual and universal corruption. Some pas- 
sages which disclose only the former have often 

[150] 



Premillenarianism 

been said to teach the latter. Individual wicked- 
ness, doubtless, reaches a height under the light 
and influence of the Gospel, which is not seen in 
any other condition in which man may be placed. 
The Gospel is the occasion of this development ; it 
stirs up the indwelling depravity of the soul, and, 
unless the individual yields to the power of di- 
vine truth, an increase in his impiety is the inev- 
itable consequence. Paul, in his epistles, often 
recognizes, and sometimes broadly states this 
truth. "We feel its presence in almost every por- 
tion of the New Testament. It is presented in the 
"Parable of the Tares of the Field." There will 
be at the end of the world both wheat and tares ; 
which shall predominate, is no part of the object 
of this parable to teach, though in the natural 
world wheat usually does, but as the wheat is de- 
veloped, so are the tares — as one ripens for the 
garner, the other matures for the flames. So as 
men are developed in holiness, those who reject 
Christ, will unfold in wickedness. This parable 
does not teach, as is often said, the prevalence of 
universal corruption at the end of the world; it 
teaches only individual corruption. 

So, also, Paul urges Timothy (2 Tim., iii:l) to 
faithfulness in his ministerial duties, and then, by 
way of warning, says: "This know also, that in 
the last days perilous times shall come. ' ' He then 
portrays by single words, a long catalogue of sins 
which will be exhibited in men. The apostle is 
here evidently speaking of the present dispensa- 
tion as a whole, which he styles the last days. 

[151] 



Science and Prayer 

The godless men of which he spoke, were already 
in existence for he commanded Timothy to tnrn 
away from them. He declared that as Jannes 
and Jambres opposed Moses, so those men, at that 
time, resisted the truth, but that as their charac- 
ters shall be fully manifested by their deeds, they 
shall "proceed no further' ' in their iniquity. 
The apostle does not teach the universal corrup- 
tion of the race at the close of this dispensation, 
but, rather, that malignant, individual impiety 
which is developed in those that oppose the Gos- 
pel. Such men are often found in communities 
where believers decidedly predominate. 

4. We must also bear in mind, that the com- 
ing of Christ to destroy Jerusalem was announced 
by the great teacher himself, and with great 
warmth and particularity pressed upon the at- 
tention of the disciples. This event is, indeed, a 
symbol of the second coming of Christ; words 
which predicted the one event, also foretell the 
other. Yet, it seems to be clear that we are not to 
expect an exact counterpart, at the second com- 
ing, of all the details in the prediction of the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Only the great outlines 
— the prominent features of the earlier event — 
will be reproduced in the latter. 

5. We are not to expect, as we have already in- 
timated, that every individual of the race will be 
regenerated, — only that the Gospel will decidedly 
bear sway; Jesus will be acknowledged King in 
Zion; probably for a long period, none will 
openly oppose the Gospel; as Moses, in his 

[152] 



Premillenarianism 

song of triumph at the Bed Sea, declared that be- 
fore the display of God's power the heathen should 
be still as a stone, while Israel marched into the 
promised land, so shall it be throughout the earth 
before Christ comes to lead his ransomed hosts 
into their everlasting rest. But since conversion 
does not utterly uproot the depraved nature of 
man, each new generation which appears, will 
likewise be converted by the preaching of the Gos- 
pel. Such a view is probably demanded by the 
Scriptures, and it naturally provides for the apos- 
tacy that is seemingly to occur just before the 
coming of Christ. Thus the Scriptures, announc- 
ing that apostacy, are seen to be in no way dis- 
cordant with the view of the universal prevalence 
of the Gospel under the present dispensation. 
By following these suggestions, there is not a pas- 
sage in the New Testament, which we are now able 
to understand, that does not find a natural and 
easy interpretation, which beautifully harmonizes 
with the general teaching of the Scriptures rela- 
tive to the subject in hand. 

But, it is objected again, that the world is ac- 
tually growing worse. It is too true that the cor- 
ruption of men is now most fearful. It is no part 
of my object to represent the case in a better light 
than the facts will permit. It is true that wars 
still desolate the earth, but they are less barba- 
rous than in former times. Then non-combatants 
in the enemy's country were regarded as foes 
and without regard to sex or age were ruthlessly 
slain, now those not under arms are protected 

[153] 



Science and Prayer 

and cared for. Then military prisoners were sold 
into slavery or put to death, now they are hu- 
manely incarcerated and fed. Then the wounded, 
uncared for, were left to die on the battle-field, 
now our armies are followed by Christian men 
and women, who tenderly care for the sick and 
the dying. Is not that an advance on the past? 
Slavery, which bound in its chains half the inhab- 
itants of the Eoman Empire in the days of the 
apostles, has nearly disappeared from the earth. 
Prisons, into which, at that time, the influence 
of the Gospel never entered, except in the person 
of incarcerated believers, now are made to feel 
the transforming touch of Christian love. Crim- 
inals are now men to be saved as well as punished. 
If any man will compare the present criminal 
code of almost any European nation with that 
of a century ago, he will see that barbarism is 
fast disappearing. Persecution, once prevalent, 
is not now tolerated except to a limited extent, 
in any nation of the earth. It is in vain to urge 
that the human heart is unchanged, and that men 
would persecute now if they had the power, for 
those statutes and that public opinion that robs 
them of it, are decisive evidences of a better 
condition of things. Theological controversies 
have lost their bitterness, and the various sects 
of Christendom are working together on many 
fields for the establishment of Christ's kingdom. 
The doctrine of religious liberty, as enunciated 
by Koger Williams, is by degrees gaining a foot- 
hold even in the Catholic countries of Europe, 

[154] 



Premillenarianism 

and is planted in every American and English 
mission on the globe. The work of modern mis- 
sions began with the opening of the last century. 
The efforts, though at first feeble, were mighty 
through God to the pulling down of strongholds. 
Each year new mission enterprises have been 
inaugurated, until the church begins to press 
hard upon the hosts of darkness. Many of the 
worst practices of idolatry have already ceased. 
Whole peoples have been Christianized. Nations, 
which a few years since shut their gates against 
the Gospel, now throw them open for its ingress. 
Even the strongholds of Japan and China and 
Burma and Madagascar have been carried by 
Christ's sacramental host. The mother of har- 
lots has been compelled to yield to the power 
of a comparatively free government, which is 
the direct product of an open Bible. Christian 
labor in Christian countries is becoming more 
thorough and pervasive. As the morning light 
which gilds the mountain tops, at last streams 
down into every dark valley and ravine, so the 
Gospel in our day goes down, as a quickening 
light, into the darkest dens of vice in our cities. 
Yet all that has been done by missions in Chris- 
tian or in heathen lands, is regarded as only 
a preparatory work. While missionaries have 
proclaimed the Gospel, they have been studying 
the religions and character of the heathen, and 
translating the Bible and religious books into 
their languages. How can any man face such an 
array of facts and declare that the world is grow- 

[155] 



Science and Prayer 

ing worse! Are not these providences of God, 
as well as his word, prophetic of the speedy con- 
version of our race, by the preaching of his 
Gospel? 

If this does not take place under this dispensa- 
tion, then the work of the Spirit is, in a great 
measure, a failure. He could not enter more 
largely into the Church, in some future dispensa- 
tion, than he does in this, if scriptural language 
means anything. He is poured out now. This 
began at Pentecost, and has been repeated often 
since then. Pentecost more than once has been 
outdone. Men are now, like Stephen, filled with 
the Spirit. Nothing could be done for the salva- 
tion of men that is not done now. The Spirit con- 
victs the world of sin. He regenerates the heart, 
creates a man anew in Christ Jesus, enters into 
him and dwells as in a temple, strengthens him 
in affliction, succors him in temptation, intercedes 
for him through the desires that he awakens 
within him. He unfolds to him the truth of 
Christ, and leads him into all truth. What more 
could he do? If this will not save the race, then 
under no possible condition can it be saved, and 
the eternal Spirit fails in his work. 

A writer of our day says, the salvation of man- 
kind will not now take place, because "the result 
of this experiment ,, of preaching the Gospel "is 
the demonstration on a vast and appalling scale, 
of the utter indisposition of men, spontaneously 
to return to God, and the hopelessness of their 
redemption, unless it be under an administration, 

[156] 



Premillenarianism 

in which the great agents that now tempt them to 
evil, shall be precluded from exerting on them 
their deluding, maddening power, and the Spirit 
of God takes exclusive and absolute possession of 
their hearts.' ' In other words, under existing 
circumstances, the Spirit is unable to perform the 
task. Such a representation ignores the grand 
difficulty in the way of man's conversion. Sup- 
pose that Satan is shut up in Hell, and that all 
governments and hierarchies that oppose the 
Church, with all their concomitant corruptions, 
are swept out of the way, the carnal heart still re- 
mains, which is enmity against God, and is not 
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 
So long as it exists there will be allurement to sin, 
even if there were no demons to suggest tempta- 
tion from without. A man is tempted, says an 
apostle, when he is drawn away by his own lust, 
and enticed. The binding of Satan and the 
destruction of the anti- Christian powers, will do 
but little toward the conversion of our race, so 
long as the depraved human heart remains un- 
changed. 

Moreover, the Spirit does now sometimes con- 
vert a man, in the midst of the most corrupting 
influences, when all the opposing powers of evil 
are brought to bear against him. He carries 
forward and completes his salvation in the teeth 
of the same difficulties. As he does this in one 
instance, he can do it in another. At each con- 
version the opposing forces of evil are weakened, 
and the forces of good are augmented. So that 

[157] 



Science and Prayer 

if the work is dependent on the diminishing of the 
outward powers of evil, it constantly grows less 
difficult, and as there are multitudes of genuine 
conversions each year, even on this ground, the 
probability of the worlds redemption is annually 
vastly increased. But I will not argue the ques- 
tion on such a basis ; it seems little short of blas- 
phemy so to limit the Holy One of Israel. The 
Almighty will not fail in his work. He knows 
nothing of difficulties. He can as easily renew a 
race as a single soul. 

But this work on the part of the Church, is pre- 
eminently one of faith. The first element of that 
faith is to believe implicitly what God has prom- 
ised. He that weakens the faith of God 's children 
in the promised conversion of the world by the 
preaching of the Gospel, however sincere he may 
be, to say the least, mischievously blunders. He 
does something, perhaps much, to hinder the at- 
tainment of that glorious result. He also robs 
the Church of its most sublime idea. There is 
sublimity in the thought of one who goes forth to 
subdue nations by the force of arms, but how 
much more sublime the conception of subjecting 
them to Christ by simply proclaiming the truth. 
This is the sublimity of faith. Such a victory is 
not with confused noise, and garments rolled in 
blood, but it is more real than that achieved at 
Waterloo or Gettysburg, because it is dominion 
gained over the souls of men. It is not a forced 
and outward subjection, but a glad submission to 
God. "The ransomed of the Lord shall return, 

[158] 



Premillenarianism 

and come to Zion with songs, and everlasting joy 
upon their heads." 

Then the vastness of the work adds almost im- 
measurably to its grandeur. The schemes of 
statesmen, for the good of a single nation, are 
sometimes inspiring. The conception of the mar- 
tyred president, when he determined to proclaim 
the emancipation of four millions of slaves and 
make good his proclamation with blows dealt out 
by an army of freemen, has awakened the admira- 
tion of the whole civilized world. But such a 
thought, however grand in itself, shrinks into in- 
significance, beside the conception of Jesus, ut- 
tered on some solitary mountain of Galilee, to a 
handful of followers, who had been gathered from 
the ranks of the common people, — "Go ye and 
make disciples of all nations." They were not 
commanded to proclaim political freedom to any, 
but to preach a truth, that the most unlettered 
could understand, which, when received by the 
millions of the race, will free them from the bond- 
age of sin and make them forevermore spiritual 
freemen in Christ Jesus. 

This work shall be done. The kingdom of 
Christ, which overlaps all state boundaries and 
includes within itself all nationalities, shall be tri- 
umphantly set up. The nations shall be turned 
and overturned, until He whose right it is shall 
reign. Then it shall be seen that even the folly of 
Babel has been made to praise Christ, for in every 
language on the earth shall his name be sung, and 
on every returning Sabbath, the voice of praise 
shall be heard around the whole globe. 

[159] 



THE SUPREME END OF THEOLOGICAL 
SCHOOLS 



THE SUPREME END OF THEOLOGICAL 
SCHOOLS 

During the past few years, the courses of 
study, and the methods of teaching in Theological 
Schools have been sharply criticised. By some 
college and university presidents, they have been 
declared antiquated and quite unable to meet the 
demands of our own day. These able critics 
have insisted upon certain radical reforms, which 
if carried into effect, would be not far from 
revolutionary. 

Having spent seventeen of the forty-three years 
of my public life in teaching Practical Theology, 
it may not be inappropriate for me, at this semi- 
centennial of our alma mater, to contribute my 
mite to this important discussion by throwing out, 
in the rough, some thoughts which have come to 
me, during the lapse of time, concerning the 
founding, construction, and administration of 
theological schools. I enter with diffidence upon 
such a task, since I call to mind that these 
schools, in their present form, are the embodiment 
of the wisdom of those distinguished and conse- 
crated men, who have wrought in theological edu- 
cation with such power and manifest success, both 
in Europe and America, from the time of the 
reformation of the sixteenth century till the 
present hour. 

[163] 



Science and Prayer 

But during these swift-revolving years, the 
conviction has become deeply rooted in my own 
mind that our theological schools should be so 
constructed and administered as to contribute 
most directly and effectively to the great, central 
work enjoined in the gospel upon all of Christ's 
followers, the seeking and saving of the lost. And 
it is now clear to me that any changes in the 
theological schools already established should 
be made in subserviency to this dominant 
duty. 

This was what Christ himself came into this 
world to do. When he freely granted salvation 
to a scorned and hated publican, he gave as the 
all-sufficient explanation of his act, ' ' For the Son 
of man came to seek and to save that which was 
lost" (Luke 19:10). And this work, the seek- 
ing and saving of the lost, explains every act of 
Christ that pertains to our race from the time 
that he emptied himself of his glory until the 
present hour. It also distinguishes the gospel 
from all ethnic or race religions. They present 
to us man in darkness and distress seeking after 
God; the gospel presents to us God, and God in 
Christ, seeking after lost men. 

But the work of Christ is also that of his fol- 
lowers. They are one with him and are his rep- 
resentatives. He said to his immediate disciples, 
"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I 
you." And he made his work theirs in circum- 
stances the most impressive. He had risen from 
the dead, and had appeared to all the Apostles; 

[164] 



Theological Schools 

but now, on some mountain in Galilee, lie appeared 
to above five hundred of his followers at once. 
It was just before his ascension. The words that 
he now uttered were among his very last. That 
circumstance, as well as their weighty import, 
reveals their transcendent importance. His dis- 
ciples were not left in doubt in reference to their 
duty. He commanded them to do a vast but 
definite work. Assuring them that all authority 
in heaven and earth had been bestowed upon him, 
so that they might not for a moment doubt that 
the great commission which he was about to give 
them was buttressed by the will of Jehovah, he 
said, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all 
the nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 
teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever 
I commanded you. ' ' This, in different phraseol- 
ogy, was enjoining on them the very work that he 
himself came to do. They were sent by their 
Lord to seek out the lost in all the nations, and 
under God to make disciples of them, and so save 
them from the love of sin and from its power 
and destructiveness. 

This great commission reveals the breadth of 
thought contained in the term, Salvation. And 
whenever in this address, I use the word, "Save," 
or ' l Salvation, ' ' it means not only the beginning 
of the new life, but also its completion ; not simply 
justification, acquittal through faith, readjust- 
ment of our relations to God, but also salifica- 
tion, being made holy. It means not alone the 

[165] 



Science and Prayer 

gracious work begun by the Spirit in the new 
birth and in conversion, but that work carried on 
until the believer is transformed into the image 
of Christ. To effect this, the Lord teaches us in 
this commission that the disciples made are to be 
set apart from the world by baptism and in- 
structed in all that he has commanded. So that 
saving the lost means not simply passing out 
of death into life, but also the unfolding and 
perfecting of that life. 

Our duty then is clear as the sunlight. What- 
ever may be our pursuit, if we live in accord- 
ance with the divine ideal, all of our acts will 
wheel into lines, and those lines will converge to 
a point, and that point will be the seeking and 
saving of the lost, making disciples of all the na- 
tions. If we till the soil, we shall turn the fur- 
row, and reap the matured harvest, for this great 
end. If we do business of any kind and thereby 
accumulate wealth, we shall do it for the supreme 
purpose of saving lost souls. If we devote our 
lives to medicine, law, teaching, civil engineering, 
we shall toil in such professions that we may use 
what we acquire of material things, intellectual 
power, knowledge, and experience, in rescuing 
men from sin. If we are indeed Christ 's this will 
be the great work of our lives; all else will be 
strictly subservient to it. And this law is uni- 
versal. No Christian is exempt from it. No 
Christian church has any reason but this for its 
existence ; nor has any Christian school, academy, 
college, university, or theological seminary. 

[166] 



Theological Schools 

In New Testament times there sprang up two 
theological schools in which men were fitted solely 
for the work of seeking and saving the lost. Over 
the first Jesus himself presided. The twelve 
apostles constituted the inner circle of students; 
while other disciples, including some women, 
made up the outer circle. Jesus taught them, 
so far and so fast as they could receive it, all 
theological doctrine. He set forth all the essen- 
tial facts pertaining to God and men and to their 
mutual relations. But every fact was a concrete 
doctrine, and every doctrine flowered out into 
duty. He thus furnished his disciples with the 
truth by the proclamation of which, men every- 
where might be saved. 

But every work that he required of them, he 
himself did ; and did it before their eyes, that they 
might not only know what to do, but how to do it. 
During his entire earthly ministry, which they 
witnessed and in which they shared, with marvel- 
ous self-sacrifice he toiled to save the lost. None 
were so vile as to lie outside the sphere of his love 
and sympathy. And then he expressly declared 
that this was the very purpose for which he came 
to the earth. That the disciples might not mis- 
take his great mission, he set it forth in three 
matchless parables, the lost sheep, the lost piece 
of money, and the lost son. This mission he 
finally consecrated with his blood. He laid down 
his life for the lost. And at the close of the three 
years in which he thus taught his disciples, and 
enforced his teaching by doing and dying, in his 

[167] 



Science and Prayer 

valedictory address he sent them out to carry on 
the work which he had begun and into which with 
so much assiduity he had initiated them. He who 
made no mistakes, educated the learners that 
gathered at his feet to do just one thing, to seek 
and save the lost of all nations. 

Over the second school Paul presided. Like 
his divine Master, he gathered around him a band 
of young men ; — Timothy, Titus, Silvanus, Tychi- 
cus, John Mark, Aristarchus, Epaphras and 
some others. These he instructed in doctrine 
and duty and breathed into them his own devoted 
spirit. They accompanied him in his apostolic 
labors. He sent them to carry forward to com- 
pletion work that he himself had begun. Con- 
stantly before their eyes was their great leader 
and teacher, whose soul was all on fire to preach 
to the heathen the unsearchable riches of Christ ; 
in whose ear the divine voice continually rang, 
"Far hence unto the Gentiles"; who declared 
that he would not build on another man's founda- 
tion, but would preach the gospel where no one 
else had ever proclaimed it ; who did preach it, in 
spite of manifold and bitter persecutions, in syna- 
gogues, in market places, in prison houses, in 
courts of justice, to Eoman soldiers to whom he 
was chained, and his purpose was to preach it 
in the then distant Spain. Those young men 
inspired by the words and acts of such a teacher, 
must have had the great thought interwoven with 
every fibre of their being that their work on earth 
was simply to seek and save the lost. 

[168] 



Theological Schools 

While these schools, presided over by Jesus and 
Paul, in all respects cannot be our models now, 
the motive which controlled them, ought unques- 
tionably to dominate the theological schools of 
the twentieth century. In them young men should 
be fitted solely for making disciples of the lost, 
and training them for effective Christian service. 

If we make this the dominant purpose in theo- 
logical education, where, First, shall we plant our 
theological schools? Undoubtedly, just where 
the students can readily reach, and preach the 
gospel to, many of the lost. For that work to 
which they have consecrated their entire lives, to 
some extent must be carried on, side by side, with 
their theological studies. This is imperative, if, 
in these students, the passion for saving souls is 
to be maintained and fanned to a hotter flame. 

But the best opportunities for doing a work of 
such vital importance both to the student and to 
the lost are found in our greater cities ; and if we 
are intent on founding theological schools which 
shall contribute most directly and largely to the 
evangelization of the nations, without a moment's 
hesitation we shall plant them in the great cen- 
ters of population. 

But keeping clearly in view the great end of 
theological instruction, in the Second place, how 
many theological schools shall we found? Will 
half a dozen in the eastern portion of this great 
republic fill up the full measure of our duty? 
There are men in our country from five hundred 
to two thousand miles away from any theological 

[169] 



Science and Prayer 

school of their own denomination, who believe 
themselves called of God to the exclusive work of 
making disciples of the lost, but distance and 
poverty seem to them insuperable obstacles, pre- 
cluding their attendance at the far away semi- 
nary. Whether their view of the case be correct 
or not, so at all events they think. And preach 
the gospel they will, in spite of their lack of 
preparation. 

Now the patronage of colleges and universities 
always has been largely local. Of this there is 
ample proof. So, if in their own or in some ad- 
joining commonwealth a theological school were 
established, they would avail themselves of its ad- 
vantages. If it is our purpose, just as soon as 
possible, using all available resources, to seek out 
and save the lost at home and abroad, shall we not 
encourage the formation of theological schools in 
those destitute States, even if such schools were 
compelled to do their work under discouraging 
limitations? Would it not hasten the salvation 
of the world to give some theological education, 
even though it were not the most comprehensive, 
to men who will enter upon their life-work with- 
out any, unless schools are planted nearer their 
own doors! Would not even such an education 
make them far more efficient in the work of saving 
the lost and in leading and training the churches 
of which they will inevitably become pastors? 
This tentative inquiry is forced upon any thought- 
ful Christian, who makes careful observations in 
the States west of the Mississippi River. 

[170] 



Theological Schools 

And in the long run, the multiplication of theo- 
logical schools, instead of militating against those 
that are best equipped at the greater centers of 
population, would rather build them up. Many a 
young man, waked up intellectually by attending 
the theological school nearest his own home, 
would not be satisfied until he had reaped the ad- 
vantages of the best that could be had, how- 
ever distant it might be. Perhaps then there 
is no valid objection to establishing such schools 
in the far West except a lack of money. Pas- 
tors thereby would be rendered more efficient 
and more of the lost would be sought out and 
saved. 

But if theological schools are organized for the 
express purpose of securing the salvation of lost 
men, in the Third place, what students shall we 
admit to their privileges? By common consent, 
college graduates of undoubted piety. But there 
are others, who by some untoward event have had 
their college course cut short. Still they have 
read a little Latin and Greek, so that, with a fair 
apprehension of the thought, they can struggle 
through a paragraph of Caesar's Commentaries 
and of Xenophon's Anabasis. They have ac- 
quired the rudiments of pure mathematics, and 
dipped slightly into natural science, and may be 
as capable of thorough work in a theological 
school as some college graduates. So while our 
standard of admission is rightly and wisely high, 
impelled to secure as large a number as possible, 
who are ready to devote all their time and 

[171] 



Science and Prayer 

strength to the work of making disciples of 
the nations, we are compelled to say, perhaps 
with a shrug of the shoulders, let these serv- 
ants of the Lord be admitted and we will do 
what we can to fit them for their Christlike 
labor. 

But, why, if we are impelled by the supreme 
motive of saving the lost, and saving the greatest 
possible number, in the briefest possible time, 
should we make that the limit? Why should we 
draw the line there against the admission of all 
others ? Discipline of mind, power to think deeply 
and clearly, is acquired in a vast variety of 
ways. Without drill in the schools, some men, 
like Matthew at the receipt of custom, in meeting 
the strenuous demands of business, are disci- 
plined to accurate thinking. Some, like Lincoln, 
acquire the power of thinking clearly by the care- 
ful reading of weighty books, and by expressing 
in accurately written propositions the thought 
discovered in them, or suggested by them. Some 
go to school in newspaper offices, and by setting 
type, or by doing the work of reporters, become 
able to express their thought correctly, if not ele- 
gantly. In fact whenever a man masters any one 
object of thought, especially if to his thinking he 
adds the doing of the thing thought out, he thereby 
acquires the ability to think clearly and justly. 
Dr. Emmons said, "He is a learned man who un- 
derstands one subject: and he is a very learned 
man who understands two subjects." Men dis- 
ciplined by thinking out and doing some thing or 

[172] 



Theological Schools 

things well, in some field of every-day life, are 
sometimes called of God to devote the remainder 
of their lives exclusively to the work of seek- 
ing and saving the lost. They are often so far 
advanced in age that a college course for them is 
impracticable; so, just as they are, they come to 
the theological school, and find written over the 
door, "None are permitted to enter here except 
college graduates, or those whose course of study 
is equivalent to that of the college. ,, Turning 
away with disappointment and sorrow, they say, 
" Necessity is laid upon us; preach the gospel we 
must, even though the theological seminary closes 
its doors against us." Unaided, at all events by 
the theological school, they enter on their work 
of saving men, accomplishing something to be 
sure, yet always haunted and oppressed with 
the thought that they might have done vastly 
more, might have saved more souls from sin 
and death and hell, if by competent profes- 
sors they had been piloted through a course of 
study in the English Bible, Doctrinal Theol- 
ogy, Church History, Homiletics and Pastoral 
Duties. 

If, in building our theological schools, we are 
controlled by the demand squarely laid upon us 
by Christ in his great commission, we shall cer- 
tainly provide for the theological training of 
such men as these. We cannot, it seems to me, be 
true representatives of him, who bowed the 
heavens and came down for the sole purpose of 
seeking and saving the lost, if, by our refusal to 

[173] 



Science and Prayer 

receive these applicants for theological instruc- 
tion, we compel them to do their life-work desti- 
tute of the equipment that they might and 
should have had. 

But by some of our institutions of highest grade 
cogent reasons have been urged against receiving 
them. We are told that the classes in theology 
must be fairly graded in order that the students 
may be stimulated to do their best work. Those 
most thoroughly disciplined should not be re- 
tarded in their progress by those who are unable, 
at least in the same time, to master fairly the 
subjects under discussion. It is necessary, there- 
fore, to divide and suitably classify students dif- 
fering widely in their degrees of culture. But if 
all were admitted to the same school and suit- 
ably classified the amount of teaching required 
would be nearly doubled. A burden so great 
could not be borne by the faculty of instruction. 
But this formidable objection can be fully met by 
increasing both the number of instructors, and 
the moneyed endowments. 

But some have gone so far as to maintain that 
even the presence of non-college graduates on 
the grounds and under the roof of a first-class 
theological school tends to lower the standard of 
scholarship and to bring the institution into dis- 
repute. While we have no real sympathy with 
this objection, and believe it to be quite baseless, 
yet admitting it as at least a prejudice to be 
humored, this seeming difficulty can be overcome 
by establishing other theological schools so far 

[174] 



Theological Schools 

away that the institutions of higher grade could 
not possibly be affected by them for weal or for 
woe. 

In such an institution students who have not 
had the advantages of the college could be edu- 
cated not only for the pulpit and pastorate, but 
also for the work of the colporter, the Bible-class 
teacher, and Sunday-school superintendent, and 
women might also there be fitted for diaconal ser- 
vice and missionary labor. At all events, on one 
thing we insist, that we cannot in our educational 
work be true to the great commission, unless 
somehow and somewhere we do all in our power 
to give theological instruction and training to all 
those whom the Lord calls to the exclusive work 
of making disciples of the lost, whether they be 
graduates of college or not. 

In the earlier history of our own denomination 
in this country, most of our churches were 
planted and trained by men who never received 
a college education. Many of them were effective 
preachers. Some of them, like John Leland and 
Alfred Bennett, were men of rare eloquence, who 
swayed at will great audiences. It is true that 
most of the churches to which they ministered, 
now demand pastors of broader culture, but there 
are fields almost innumerable both in the East 
and West whose spiritual necessities would be 
well met by men destitute of college training, if 
in some well-ordered theological school they were 
only carefully instructed in the Scriptures, bibli- 
cal doctrine, and in the whole round of practical 

[175] 



Science and Prayer 

theology. Many of these students, if not far ad- 
vanced in years, would probably be stirred up by 
such instruction to enter upon a broader and 
more thorough course of study. 

While we are sure that in the ministry quality 
is vastly more important than quantity, all the 
history of the past teaches us that outside of col- 
lege walls, we sometimes find men of the finest 
quality and of the greatest worth. And when we 
remember the hundreds of millions of our fellow 
men to whom the gospel has never yet been 
preached, the tens of millions of formalists who 
have no saving knowledge of Christ, the fields at 
home and abroad that are ripe, and that there are 
but few reapers to gather in the harvest of souls, 
we cannot but feel how strong and solemn our 
obligation is to equip as many laborers as pos- 
sible and send them out without delay on the 
Christ-like errand of seeking and saving the lost 
of all the nations. 

But, in the Fourth place, in order to fit men for 
the all-important work of saving the lost, what 
should be the course of study in our theological 
schools? In substance, we reply, the same that 
we now usually find in them ; but, it seems to me, 
if we are to realize our aim, it will be necessary 
to put greater emphasis on some subjects than 
we do now, thus quite materially modifying the 
ordinary curriculum, without any radical dis- 
placement of old topics. And it may be wise to 
require the student to acquaint himself with So- 
ciology and Pedagogy, which of late have been 

[176] 



Theological Schools 

knocking at the doors of some of our theological 
schools. 

First of all, he, who like his Master, goes forth 
to seek and save the lost, must have a clear, 
strong grasp on the message which he is sent to 
proclaim. And since this message is found alone 
in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, 
the fundamental subject in the theological cur- 
riculum should be the written word of God. 
These inspired writings should be studied if pos- 
sible in the language in which they were written. 
Still a devout and diligent student, through the 
best translations, can acquire a just and adequate 
knowledge of the Bible ; and, as a matter of fact, 
most students who study the Scriptures in their 
original tongues are usually enabled to appre- 
hend their real import as much by the transla- 
tions to which they properly constantly refer, as 
by what they independently discover in the 
Hebrew and Greek texts. But be this as it 
may, all theological teachers, with entire una- 
nimity, will urge that it is absolutely necessary 
for him who is called to preach the gospel to 
lost men, to become in some way thoroughly ac- 
quainted with the Scriptures whence he derives 
his message. 

But this is a task as difficult as it is important. 
To help the student fairly to accomplish it what 
must be his teacher 's mode of procedure 1 There 
are two ways of teaching the Bible ; both are im- 
portant, and they should be combined. One is to 
subject some portions of the Scriptures, a scrap 

[177] 



Science and Prayer 

of history or prophecy here, an epistle there, to a 
careful, painstaking, minute examination, and let 
this be the model to guide the student and 
preacher in all his future study of God's word. 
He goes to his life-work well acquainted with some 
patches of the Scriptures; to his mind they are 
luminous spots in a wide, untraversed territory; 
but working his way out from these he may be able 
successfully to explore the far greater remainder. 
There is much good sense in such a method of 
study, and every student should have the great 
benefit that manifestly flows from it. But while 
we hold fast to this, we also maintain that every 
student, whose sole work in life is to be the proc- 
lamation of God's word, should, under the guid- 
ance of a competent teacher, investigate as thor- 
oughly as may be every book of the Bible, learn 
the characteristics of each history, song, proph- 
ecy, gospel and epistle, the object for which each 
was written, and make a general analysis of its 
thought. Having thus surveyed the whole, he 
will better understand and more keenly appreci- 
ate any one of its parts. He gets also through 
such study a clear view of the ever-unfolding 
revelation of the character and purposes of God, 
from the account in Genesis of paradise lost by 
sin, to the Apocalypse in which are portrayed the 
ineffable glories of paradise regained through the 
love and grace of God. 

But shall the student be taught higher criti- 
cism? Since he must often meet the notions em- 
bodied in it, which have been, and are being, so 

[178] 



Theological Schools 

industriously spread abroad, good sense would 
dictate that all the essential views, on both sides 
of this controversy, should be impartially pre- 
sented, that the student may be able intelligently 
to judge for himself where the truth lies. He 
should be warned against all partial, one-sided 
advocacy ; he should be carried back far into the 
past to the very roots of this movement; should 
be led to a careful survey of the present opinions 
of the critics in all their manifold variations and 
antagonisms ; so that whatever of truth there may 
be in them, he may receive, and whatever of error, 
he may reject. He should ascertain for himself 
what in this contention is unsubstantial theory, 
and what is established fact. From broad candid 
study like this the truth loses nothing, but gains 
much. 

But what the student needs to know beyond all 
that higher criticism essays to offer, beyond a 
knowledge of the literary character of the books 
of the Bible, their authors, the time when, and 
the people to whom, they were written, is their 
actual contents, the divine thought with which 
they are freighted; since that thought made 
known to men is the divinely-chosen means by 
which the lost are to be saved. The superlative 
emphasis therefore in the curriculum of a theo- 
logical school should, it seems to me, be laid on 
the study of the entire word of God. 

But since nothing is really known until it is 
apprehended in its relations, we must give to sys- 
tematic theology a very prominent, though it be 

[179] 



Science and Prayer 

a subordinate, place in our curriculum. We 
choose the term, systematic, because so far forth 
as biblical theology, which happily attracts so 
much attention at the present time, presents to us 
the doctrines of the Scriptures in their real and 
vital relations, it is systematic. These doctrines 
are not isolated like the scattered stones of the 
street, but vitally united like the various parts of 
the body, so that they form a living organism. 
On the other hand systematic theology includes 
metaphysical theology, for in so far as we justify 
the relations in which we present the doctrines 
of the Bible, we necessarily reveal their philo- 
sophical basis; so that the term systematic, vir- 
tually includes both biblical and metaphysical 
theology. Now no one can have a clear, just con- 
ception of any one doctrine of the Scriptures, un- 
til he apprehends it in its vital relations to other 
doctrines. To present a truth out of its real rela- 
tions distorts it, and often transmutes it into in- 
sidious, destructive error. Systematic theology 
which keeps us from such a folly and disaster, 
which gives a true knowledge of doctrine by re- 
vealing it to us in its just relations, is greatly 
decried in our day. But scientific theology, de- 
cried though it be, is absolutely necessary to keep 
even the preacher, who believes the gospel with 
all his heart, from one-sidedness and practical 
heresy. 

But a knowledge of church history is also im- 
portant for him who goes forth from our theo- 
logical schools to make disciples and to lead them 

[180] 



Theological Schools 

in all Christian activity. Just as the sculptor or 
painter, in order to reach the highest excellence 
in his art, needs to trace its development through 
all the past centuries, so the ambassador of Christ, 
in order to do his work most wisely and efficiently, 
must know what the church has hitherto wrought 
out both in doctrine and life. 

The renowned leaders of the church in all the 
past centuries arouse young men and spur them on 
to highest achievement. Its martyrs shame them 
out of all complaint for any hardships that they 
may be called upon to endure for Christ's sake. 
Church history also reveals to the student the 
great principles that underlie the growth of God's 
kingdom here on earth, and the onward march of 
God's providences in the fulfillment of his great 
purposes of grace to our fallen race. And how- 
ever many things he may see in all this past his- 
tory, which he cannot but deplore, he finds that 
the final outcome vindicates Christ's declaration 
concerning his church: "The gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." And this fills him with 
confidence in the final triumph of the gospel. 
History has also preserved the molds of doctrine 
of the past centuries and these enable him so to 
express doctrine now as to reflect any new light 
that has broken forth from God's word. The 
varied expression of doctrine teaches the student 
that while one theological formula has been re- 
placed by another, the truth, which successive 
generations fail to express perfectly, is eternal 
and immutable. The sermons of successful 

[181] 



Science and Prayer 

preachers, down through the Christian centuries, 
help him to gauge the real worth of his own dis- 
courses, and stimulate him to higher achieve- 
ment ; the prayers of the past crystallized in ritual 
enrich his own both in thought and expression; 
the best hymns of the whole Christian era give 
him a clear conception of what a good hymn is 
both in matter and poetic form. History also 
gives to him breadth and liberality. He learns 
from the doctrinal formulas, sermons, prayers, 
and hymns of the past nineteen centuries that be- 
lievers of different epochs, countries, races, civ- 
ilizations, communions are in substantial accord 
in reference to most of the central truths of the 
gospel. Moreover, history lifts a warning voice 
against extremes or one-sidedness in thought or 
conduct, by revealing the disasters which unbal- 
anced thinking and acting have brought upon the 
church. It also takes the conceit out of a learner, 
by showing him that virtue and knowledge are not 
peculiar to his own generation, but that large 
areas of truth were known before he was born. 
It fits him too to detect and refute the errors by 
which he may be confronted. He sees that what- 
ever may be said of the transmigration of souls, 
there is not the slightest doubt of the transmi- 
gration of error. That the brand-new arguments 
by which the gospel is now at last to be utterly 
overthrown are as old as Celsus, or as musty as 
Gnosticism — malodorous mummies of scepticism 
pulled out of their mouldy tombs, and dressed in 
ninteenth-century clothes. So history helps to 

[182] 



Theological Schools 

make him what Paul said the pastor must be, 
* ' able to convict the gainsayers. ' ' 

But perhaps the crowning benefit derived from 
this study is that it shows the student what fools 
men have made of themselves and into what 
morasses of difficulties they have plunged when- 
ever they have departed in opinion or life from 
the simple word of God. And this will be a pow- 
erful influence to keep him true to the inspired 
Scriptures. 

But of late it has been seriously contended that 
Sociology and Pedagogy should have a place in 
the curricula of our theological schools. It is 
true that these studies are full of valuable sug- 
gestions to any one who toils for the good of his 
fellow men, but there is nothing in them which 
distinctively belongs to theological training. 
Whatever they yield that is valuable is just as 
necessary for the teacher, the lawyer, or the phy- 
sician, as for the minister of the gospel ; in short, 
these studies are very desirable factors in the 
education of every citizen. They manifestly be- 
long therefore not to the theological school, but to 
the college and the university. 

As to the Sociology of the New Testament, that 
is simply the presentation of the manner in which 
Christ and his apostles won men to the truth, and 
laid down the principles by which they should be 
controlled in all their relations to society and the 
state. All this should be set forth in any thor- 
ough exposition of the Gospels, the Acts and the 
Epistles. Any student, under the guidance of his 

[183] 



Science and Prayer 

exegetical professors, could easily explore this 
entire subject; but if the elucidation of this im- 
portant topic should prove to be too great a bur- 
den for our professors of exegesis, then a pro- 
fessor of the Sociology of the Bible should find 
his place in all the faculties of our theological 
schools. 

Now, still keeping in mind the fact that in the 
theological school students should be expressly 
trained for the work of making disciples of the 
lost and of leading those disciples in all Christian 
activity, it is unquestionably incumbent upon us 
to instruct them thoroughly in Pastoral Duties. 
Much more time and attention should be given 
to such instruction than has hitherto been re- 
quired even in our best equipped seminaries. It 
does not need to be said that the primal duty of a 
pastor or shepherd is to go after the lost until he 
finds them; and when, amid the rejoicing of the 
heavenly host, he has brought them home to God 
and into the fold, it is his duty to feed them that 
they may grow in all the graces of the Spirit and 
become in thought and purpose and life like 
Christ himself. 

Both in making disciples and in building them 
up into stalwart, Christian manhood, the most 
prominent instrumentality is preaching. This 
was divinely instituted. It has been consecrated 
by prophets, apostles, elders and by Christ him- 
self. It has pleased God through the foolishness 
of preaching (not by foolish preaching) to save 
those that believe. Preaching without the shadow 

[184] 



Theological Schools 

of a doubt is the preeminent duty of every one 
whose exclusive work is to save the lost. It fol- 
lows therefore that in the making and delivery of 
sermons, every student in our theological schools 
should be carefully taught and thoroughly 
drilled. 

First, he should be taught how to get his mes- 
sage out of God's word, so that that message will 
be the real thought of God, and not some theory 
or vagary of his own that he has saddled on his 
text. 

Second, the student must be taught to put the 
message that he derives from the word of God 
into language readily understood by those to whom 
he speaks. Else, if at first they give him their 
attention, he cannot hold it. Men will not long 
listen to a speaker whom they cannot understand. 
A sermon most fitting and impressive addressed 
to an audience of learned men might be as 
unintelligible as Chinese to a congregation of 
American workmen from some manufacturing 
establishment. 

Years ago, in my own pulpit, a distinguished 
brother and college president preached to a con- 
gregation of plain, sensible people, and at the 
start, endeavoring to elucidate his text, said, 
"The Greek particle hina in this text is illative, 
and it is here used not in its telic, but in its ecbatic 
sense ! ' ' 

While I am sure that no young men from any of 
our theological schools would be guilty of such 
gross impropriety, yet they often unwittingly err 

[185] 



Science and Prayer 

by using in their sermons the technical terms of 
theology. Very useful terms they are to the 
student, and pregnant with meaning; but they 
are out of place in the pulpit. 

Two squirrels that often come to my chamber 
window for nuts would be excellent instructors of 
some preachers. They very quickly push their 
sharp teeth through the hard shells of the wal- 
nuts, and taking out the sweet and nourishing 
meat eat it with avidity, while they cast the empty 
and worthless shucks aside. But very few in the 
average congregation are able to break for them- 
selves the hard, dry shells of scientific theological 
terms, and the live preacher will do it for them. 
As he constructs his sermon, he will crack these 
nuts, and carry to the people the nourishing truth 
which they contain, but will leave the shucks in 
his study. No man is fit to preach until he has 
learned the distinction between a theological 
treatise and a sermon. 

Third, the students of our theological schools, 
if they are ever to get at, and save, men through 
preaching, must also learn the distinction between 
an essay and a sermon; that an essay is a dis- 
sertation on some fact, or principle, or doctrine, 
in which only the third person is used and no one 
is addressed; while a sermon is a direct address 
to men, a personal appeal in which, as in Christ 's 
sermon on the mount, the second person inevi- 
tably rises to the lips. The preacher says "you" 
to him whom he would save from sin and death. 
Bulwer in his Caxtoniana says, "The essayist 

[186] 



Theological Schools 

quietly affirms a proposition; the orator vehe- 
mently asks a question. The writer asserts that 
the ' excesses of Cataline became at last insup- 
portable even to the patience of the Senate.' 
'How long will you abuse our patience, 
Cataline V exclaims the orator.' ' 

But fundamental as this distinction is, and 
necessary as it is to ministerial success, some men 
in the pulpit, eminent for their talent, seem never 
to have learned it. A pastor, in the United 
States, who became famous for his literary at- 
tainments, as a preacher had very little success. 
He read delightful essays, full of sonorous, well- 
balanced sentences, upon every doctrine and duty 
of the Bible and upon all its literary beauties. 
Men listened with the same sort of interest that 
is manifest in a literary club when some talented 
member reads a thoughtful essay, and then un- 
moved went their way. His senior deacon, who 
for many years ardently supported him, said to 
me one day, "My pastor and Peter are exact op- 
posites. Peter preached one sermon and three 
thousand were converted; but my pastor has 
preached three thousand sermons and one has 
been converted." But those numerous, so-called 
sermons were scholarly, brilliant essays, that and 
no more. 

But if we are really educating the students in 
our schools to make disciples of the lost and to 
train them in Christian living, they must be taught 
not only to make sermons, but also to deliver 
them. A good delivery is often more than half 

[187] 



Science and Prayer 

the battle. A poorer discourse well delivered is 
often vastly more effective than an abler one 
poorly delivered. What strange infatuation con- 
trols us, when we insist upon efficiency in He- 
brew, and Aramaic, and Greek, and history, and 
theology, and yet at the best pay comparatively 
so little attention to teaching men how to speak 
with clearness and force and manliness, while 
public speaking is to be the most constant and 
important work of their whole lives. If we ap- 
preciate as we ought that the exclusive work of 
these students in all their future life on earth is 
to get at men and save them by preaching, we 
shall give more earnest heed to their training in 
elocution. 

But if we are intent on making disciples of the 
nations, we shall not only teach the students in 
theological schools the divine art of preaching, 
but also the whole round of pastoral duties ; how 
to conduct the service of public prayer so as to 
stimulate the devotions of the whole congrega- 
tion ; how to read the Scriptures so as to give the 
sense; how to read hymns so as to reveal their 
thought; how to administer impressively the or- 
dinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; how 
to develop the spirit of worship in the congrega- 
tion through singing; how to guide and stimulate 
the church in all its benevolences; how to build 
up the Sunday-school and Bible classes; how to 
marry the betrothed and bury the dead; how to 
make effective pastoral calls on all classes; how 
to reach non-church-goers; how to deal with in- 

[188] 



Theological Schools 

quirers ; how to conduct church discipline ; how to 
get an entire church interested in saving all 
classes of men, and the community interested in 
the church and its work. If we really educate 
men to save the lost, all these duties, which touch 
at so many points the great and absorbing end 
in view, must be taught with an iteration and 
earnestness hitherto unknown. 

And the instruction given in these duties should 
be tested if possible by actual work done, while 
the student is engaged in his course of study. 
Let him and his professor, when they have the 
opportunity, preach and do other pastoral work 
together. Moreover, it would be of great advan- 
tage to the student, either during his course of 
study or immediately after, to be associated with 
some aggressive, successful pastor, under whose 
immediate supervision and direction he shall, for 
at least a year, give himself to all kinds of pas- 
toral work. And if the graduate is to be a mis- 
sionary, it would greatly help him in his work, 
and enhance his effectiveness, if he could toil for 
two or three years under the guidance of some 
veteran laborer on the foreign field. In fact the 
whole work of making disciples at home and 
abroad should be enthusiastically studied as a 
divine art, ever bearing in mind, that the process 
of saving is never complete, till those who are 
rescued from sin, are presented before the divine 
throne, " without spot, or wrinkle, or any such 
thing." 

We have not discussed the subject of elective 
[189] 



Science and Prayer 

studies because it does not seem to us to be di- 
rectly involved in the theme under consideration. 
But any liberty granted in the election of studies 
should be limited by the great principle which we 
have endeavored to set forth ; the subjects chosen 
should be such as will best fit the student for the 
work of making and training disciples. 

And if to the studies already named another 
should be added, it is that of interpretative read- 
ing. The public reading of the Scriptures has a 
prominent place in pulpit service. Paul exhorted 
Timothy to give special attention to it. To ex- 
press by reading correctly and forcibly the 
thought of God as it lies in the inspired writings 
adds vast power to the public ministrations of 
any preacher. But this is no easy task. One 
must first understand the thought of the passage 
that he wishes to read, and then be able by empha- 
sis and tone to reveal it to, and impress it upon, 
those that hear. The professor of this art must 
be skilled both in interpretation and in elocution. 
And the wretched reading of the Scriptures with 
which so many congregations are afflicted renders 
such a professorship imperative. 

But if we found and administer the theological 
school for the sole purpose of seeking and saving 
the lost, what kind of a faculty of instruction must 
we have? Upon them more than upon all else, rests 
the success or failure of the theological school. 
They are its chosen and acknowledged leaders. 
What they are, the school will be. Like priest, 
like people. Like professors to a large extent will 

[190] 



Theological Schools 

be the students, and the pastors and missionaries 
educated under their direction. 

In answering this question, "What kind of 
faculty must we have?" some things indeed are 
taken for granted and need not be insisted on 
here. Of course, the professor must thoroughly 
understand what he attempts to teach. How can 
a man teach what he does not know? He must 
also have the power so to put before his classes 
the facts and principles of his subject that they 
will apprehend them and be impressed by them. 
In other words he must know the practical art of 
teaching. 

But what the professor himself is, is still more 
important. Character, from which flows forth 
influence as silent, constant, pervasive and mighty 
as the force of gravitation, is the supreme factor 
to be taken into account in the selection of our 
theological instructors. By what they are, vastly 
more than by what they teach, they shape the 
characters and determine the destinies of the stu- 
dents, who look up to them with trust and often 
with admiration. No men on earth need more 
than theological professors to walk with God, and 
to incorporate into their own characters the 
character of Christ. 

But we must not forget that these professors 
who have the three qualifications named, a clear 
apprehension of what they are to teach, aptness 
in teaching, and characters molded after that of 
Christ, are called to fit men for the exclusive and 
all-important work of seeking and saving the 

[191] 



Science and Prayer 

lost. But how can they train others to do this 
unless they know how to do it themselves? How 
can a man teach others to swim, if he himself can- 
not swim? How can one teach others to paint 
animals, or flowers, or landscapes, or portraits if 
he himself has never put pencil or brush to can- 
vas ? How can a man teach others the art of sav- 
ing souls, who has himself never practised that 
art? Our contention is that in a theological school 
built up for the express purpose of fulfilling the 
great commission, all of its professors should 
have, to a greater or less extent, the experience 
of preachers and pastors; at least they should 
know by having done it, and by doing it while 
engaged in teaching, what it is to seek and save 
the lost. 

The introduction of men into our theological 
faculties who are utterly destitute of all pastoral 
experience, powerfully tends to supplant the mo- 
tive which should have absolute control in all the- 
ological teaching. Scholarship instead of evan- 
gelism, becomes, imperceptibly it may be, but 
really, the supreme end in teaching. And so it 
comes to pass that those students are most valued, 
most generously helped, and most honored, who 
excel in some special line of investigation, even 
though their specialty be quite remote from their 
chosen life-work, the preaching of the gospel. 
Under such a spur, students become more ambi- 
tious to secure the scholastic degree of Ph. D. 
than to become workmen in the ministry, who 
need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word 

[192] 



Theological Schools 

of truth. Many of them become specialists in 
study and soon leave the work of saving the lost 
that they may devote themselves exclusively to 
that of scientific and scholarly attainment. And 
the result too often is that they leave the throne 
of the pulpit for some chair of linguistics, 
or philosophy, or history, in some academy, or 
college, or university. 

In saying this, it is not my purpose to dispar- 
age in the slightest degree the broadest, pro- 
foundest scholarship; unquestionably the more 
the preacher has of it, other things being equal, 
the more effective he will be. We are sure that 
neither God nor sensible men take any delight in 
ignorance. But it is not the object of the genuine 
theological school to make its students profound 
specialists in any department of thought, — to pro- 
duce that somewhat indefinite creature called a 
scholar; but rather to train men for the specific 
work of preaching the gospel and saving the 
lost. 

But having organized our theological schools 
for the express purpose of securing as soon as 
possible the salvation of all men, can we ade- 
quately equip and endow them? They should 
have buildings and libraries and a suitable num- 
ber of professors, who will be expected to devote 
all their time and energies to the task of training 
the students for the matchless work to which God 
has called them. Most of these teachers are poor 
and must receive just compensation for their toil. 
And we are commanded "not to muzzle the ox 

[193] 



Science and Prayer 

that treadeth out the corn." So our schools 
should have a sufficient income from invested 
funds to sustain these instructors not in luxury, 
but, at least, in decency. 

How can adequate endowments be secured? If 
all in our churches were fully alive to the great 
fact that their supreme work on earth is to seek 
and save the lost, then our thrifty and rich lay- 
men would see in our theological schools such a 
mighty agency for carrying out the great commis- 
sion, that they would clamor for the privilege of 
suitably endowing them. But alas! up to the 
present hour, only a few, compared with the 
great body of believers, have ever apprehended 
the fact that the only adequate reason for the 
existence of any Christian church is the seeking 
and saving of the lost. Not apprehending this, 
hosts of Christian men are accumulating wealth 
simply for themselves and their households. It 
has never dawned upon them that they are under 
God merely stewards of the wealth which they 
have gathered ; that both they and it belong to the 
Lord ; that he rightly claims it together with their 
talent and energies for the work of rescuing men 
from sin and death. But will they always fail to 
see that the responsibility of saving the lost rests 
just as squarely on the laity as on the ministry, 
on the pew as on the pulpit? And these business 
men in the churches, what great talent they pos- 
sess! Many of them are thrifty farmers, or 
builders, or merchants. They are prominent 
among those who originate vast enterprises and 

[194] 



Theological Schools 

successfully carry them out. They rib the con- 
tinent with steel rails ; they thread the face of all 
civilized lands with telegraph wires; under the 
mighty oceans they stretch their electric cables; 
their ships furrow all waters around the whole 
globe; but all this talent belongs to Christ, and 
should be concentrated on the great work which 
he has called us to do, making disciples of all the 
nations. 

And we believe that the time will come when 
Christian business men of all denominations will 
see their duty and do it. There will then be an- 
other ecumenical council somewhat different from 
that recently held in New York. In addition to 
Christian pastors, missionaries, and missionary 
secretaries, there will be a far greater host of 
Christian laymen, many of them having great 
wealth. And they will say to each other, "The 
Lord has left us a mighty work to do. He has 
commanded us to seek and save the lost of all na- 
tions ; it is passing strange that we have not be- 
fore this seen our duty; now let us set about the 
doing of it. We have the requisite money, and we 
will use it for this great purpose. Our ships shall 
not only carry merchandise, but truth and salva- 
tion to the ends of the earth. Our ocean cables 
shall not only report the price of corn and cotton 
and stocks on foreign bourses, the twists of diplo- 
macy at the national capitals, the carnage of bat- 
tle-fields, and the desolation wrought by famine 
and pestilence, but also the conflicts and triumphs 
of the gospel of Christ in every part of the earth.' ' 

[ 195 ] * 



Science and Prayer 

That great council will be irenic. Denomina- 
tional differences will be utilized simply in help- 
ing map out the work to be done. One part of 
the earth will be given to one denomination to 
evangelize, another part to another, until the 
whole globe shall be marked out into districts, 
each of which will be invaded and conquered by 
some one of the divisions of God's sacramental 
host. Then, this council will see as never before 
the need of very many scholarly, devoted, conse- 
crated missionaries, and they will wisely conclude 
to endow amply our theological schools as the 
most important of all the means by which this 
great demand can be met. Till then we must look 
up enough men and women, who, in some meas- 
ure, at least, understand what the great work of 
the Church of Christ on earth is, and get them to 
endow, as well as may be, these theological 
schools. And just in proportion as the great mass 
of Christ's followers see and feel that their chief 
work is to make disciples of all the nations, will be 
the ease with which these endowments can be 
secured. 

Now what is the conclusion of the whole mat- 
ter? First, a theological school planted, endowed, 
and conducted under the sway of a motive so lofty 
and mighty as this, would attract to its halls a 
large number of students. The highest, noblest 
manhood is always most aroused and attracted 
by work which is difficult, but at the same time 
immeasurably important. True men are seldom 
responsive to any call to do what is easy and of 

[196] 



Theological Schools 

little worth. But if our liberties are brought into 
jeopardy, if our hearths and homes are threat- 
ened with destruction, then all true men rush to 
the rescue regardless of personal ease or safety. 
If our fellow men are in peril from flood, or fire, or 
fell disease, men and women without a thought 
of the hardships and imminent dangers that con- 
front them, hasten to bring relief. And so when 
it shall be known that a theological school has been 
planted and is being administered to fit men solely 
for the difficult, heroic work of saving the lost 
throughout the whole world, a work which brings 
men into fellowship with God and into conformity 
with his character, a work which not only regen- 
erates individuals, but on the principles of right- 
eousness transforms society and reconstructs 
laws and governments, a work that is the only 
reasonable hope of all that is purest and most 
beneficent in civilization, young men in all the 
churches of Christ will be aroused as by the trump 
of God, and will say, ' ' There we must go, that we 
may be fitted to do this great thing. ' ' 

Second, this imperial motive will also secure on 
the part of the students thus drawn together 
faithfulness and enthusiasm in study. They will 
gladly subject themselves to the most rigorous 
discipline, since, thereby they will be better fitted 
to save men, to enter more efficiently into the 
very work to which Christ with such complete 
self-sacrifice consecrated his earthly ministry; 
this, if anything, will secure untiring devotion to 
study. 

[197] 



Science and Prayer 

Third, such a theological school will become a 
center of evangelizing power. That to which the 
congregated students consecrate their lives, will, 
as opportunity presents itself, be at once begun. 
The saving of men will not be a mere theory, 
floating in the brain during the period devoted to 
theological study, but, from the start, theory and 
practice will go hand in hand. So far as time will 
permit, without trenching on the necessary work 
of the study and class-room, these students will 
put forth earnest effort to seek and save the lost. 
The truth discovered and intellectually grasped, 
will at once be applied and tested in the work of 
saving souls. Just as the student of Chemistry 
masters its principles and theories by experiment- 
ing in the laboratory, so the student of theology 
will be helped to the mastery of its truths by 
applying them in the real work of saving 
men. The great joy which flows from the ac- 
quisition of new truth, will be supplemented 
by the greater joy which flows from saving the 
lost. 

From this it is clear that such labor will not in- 
terfere with rapidity and thoroughness of acqui- 
sition. The one will rather stimulate and help the 
other. The practical test of truth, by its applica- 
tion to real life, will give the student a clearer, 
firmer grasp of it. 

And if any student should at times fall into 
doubt concerning the truth or efficiency of the 
gospel, nothing so quickly and completely sweeps 
away the gathering clouds of unbelief as witness- 

[198] 



Theological Schools 

ing the transformation of men, through the 
proclamation of the truth. 

Moreover, truth acquired both by study and by 
testing its power in real life gives to the student 
steadiness and firmness of faith. He knows what 
he believes. The truth to him is not some in- 
tangible theological theory or speculation, but 
part and parcel of his experience and life. And 
when he speaks, he utters what he has seen and 
felt. To him the doctrines of God's saving grace 
are as solid as a mountain of granite ; and when 
he preaches them you hear in every sentence the 
accent of conviction. 

And to crown all, the students of such a school, 
already, as time and opportunity permit, engaged 
in the work of saving the lost, will never need to 
be stirred up from without to labor on the foreign 
mission field, but they will always be ready to 
toil among, and for the salvation of, any people 
on the face of the earth. Whenever the call comes 
from any place, at home or abroad, each one with 
glad heart will say, "Here am I, Lord, send 
me." 

Fourth, this mighty motive which we have con- 
sidered would vastly augment the power of the 
professors of the theological school. How dili- 
gent they would become, how earnest and pains- 
taking in study, how faithful and patient in teach- 
ing, if, in every hour of their lives, they felt that 
they were doing all their work in order to secure 
as soon as possible the salvation of the lost for 
whom their Master died. 

[199] 



Science and Prayer 

And this motive would not only lead them 
gladly to give to their work every power of body 
and soul, but it would also modify and shape their 
teaching. Under its influence they would be con- 
strained to present to the students under their 
care, and to lead them to investigate and acquire 
just what will help them most in saving lost men 
and in training them for the broadest and most 
effective service. They would be led to discard in 
teaching that which is merely speculative, how- 
ever interesting in and of itself it might be. 
Without undervaluing tentative speculation, they 
would in all probability be forced to the conclu- 
sion, that many truths of the gospel have been 
already over-discussed; that its great saving 
truths are established beyond all reasonable 
doubt, and that they should spend their 
time and strength in teaching the everlasting 
verities of God's word, so necessary to fit the 
young men of their classes to do the work of mak- 
ing disciples of the lost. At all events, the mighty 
motive that controlled Christ in all that he said 
and did, would be the great decisive factor as to 
what they should teach, and as to the emphasis 
that they should give in teaching to this or to that. 

How much time some theological teachers have 
given to the speculation as to whether there may 
be a second probation, as to whether men who die 
in impenitence may have another chance to re- 
ceive or reject salvation on the other side of the 
grave. Of course the whole sweep of Scripture 
is utterly against such a view. There are only 

[200] 



Theological Schools 

two or three vague hints in the Bible out of which 
such a doctrine might be tortured. How shadowy 
is the basis of such a speculation, resting as it 
does on the most perverse atomistic interpreta- 
tion. And how can such hypothetical, unsubstan- 
tial teaching concerning the future life fit men to 
seek and save the lost now and here 1 

This indeed may be an extreme case. But if 
theological professors, in all their teaching, have 
alone in view the fitting of men to save the lost, 
very likely a multitude of speculations, on a large 
variety of topics, on which much precious time 
has been worse than squandered, will be altogether 
laid aside and forgotten. 

Moreover, controlled by the supreme motive of 
saving the lost, theological professors will not 
hesitate to take right hold of this practical work 
along with their students. Not of course to the 
extent of interfering with that study, which is so 
imperative, if they are to be strong, successful 
teachers; but some practical labor of this kind 
will keep them constantly in mind of the great 
work that the Master demands alike of teachers 
and pupils, and will make the gospel which they 
unfold to their students a greater power within 
their own souls. I take it for granted, that no 
man, be he layman, or minister, or theological 
professor, can teach the gospel only so far forth 
as he does the gospel. Christ said that we must 
not only hear his sayings, but do them. 

How inspiring would be the sight of a theo- 
logical school animated with, and unified by, this 

[201] 



Science and Prayer 

great truth, that Christ's disciples have only one 
reason for living and acting, and that is to save 
the lost. For this great end the professors would 
study, and teach, and preach and pray; for the 
same great end the students would read, and in- 
vestigate, and eagerly listen in the lecture-room, 
and also pray; and all, both teachers and stu- 
dents, so far as their strength should permit, 
would join hands in the practical work of seeking 
and saving the lost. How blessed and fruitful 
such fellowship in study and toil would be, — 
fellowship uniting both teachers and students in 
one sympathetic brotherhood, and all with their 
Lord and Master. So that the great purpose that 
brought him into the world, the salvation of our 
race, would be the supreme purpose of all. 



[202] 



THE USE OF THE SCRIPTURES IN 
THEOLOGY 



THE USE OF THE SCRIPTURES IN 
THEOLOGY 

By the late William Newton Clarke, D. D., 

Professor of Christian Theology in 

Colgate University 

Sometime during the year 1905, the late Wil- 
liam Newton Clarke, D. D., Professor of Christian 
Theology in Colgate University, delivered the 
Nathaniel Taylor Lectures, before the Divinity 
School of Yale University, on "The Use of the 
Scriptures in Theology.' ' His thoughts on this 
important and deeply interesting topic were 
urged upon the attention of young men about to 
go forth from their student life to preach the 
gospel. He divided his subject into four parts, 
"The Problem,' ' "The Principle," "Results 
Negative," and "Results Positive." To each 
part he gave one discourse. These four dis- 
courses he subsequently published in a small vol- 
ume, which, for a theological work, has been 
widely read. Among others, I perused it and laid 
it aside with no purpose of criticising it publicly. 
But some of my brethren in Boston urged me to 
present my views of it before the Baptist Min- 
isters ' Conference of that city, and simply out of 
a spirit of accommodation, I consented so to do. 

[205] 



Science and Prayer 

I was reluctant in undertaking the task, not be- 
cause I did not consider it important, but be- 
cause I felt that some one else could perform it 
far better than I. But yielding to the importunity 
of those whom I very highly esteem, I presented 
my criticism of these popular lectures. In a more 
elaborate form I delivered my criticism before 
the Baptist Pastors' Conference at Providence, 
the Rochester Theological Seminary, and the 
Baptist Pastors' Conference of Chicago. 

My personal relations with the author of this 
book have been exceedingly pleasant, and his 
Commentary on the Gospel of Mark has been a 
favorite of mine. So I approached the criticism 
of these lectures strongly prejudiced in favor of 
their author. 

There are many utterances in this book which 
Christian men generally will endorse. He pro- 
poses to make theology Christocentric. This by 
most, if not by all, thinkers will certainly be ap- 
proved. So much of Jesus' teaching as he pre- 
sents, all that he says in behalf of thorough, 
honest investigation of the Scriptures, his ardent 
advocacy of setting forth fearlessly the real 
meaning of every part of the Bible, will unques- 
tionably be cordially endorsed by every lover of 
biblical truth. 

But much that he urges, very many, as devoted 
to the truth as the author claims to be, will hesi- 
tate to receive, will in all probability reject. At 
all events even his main contention that the say- 
ings of Christ concerning God are the crown of 

[206] 



Scriptures in Theology 

revelation, around which all the thought of his 
book is built, to my own mind is untenable. 

Before formally stating this position, we must 
have clearly in mind the fact that the author 
wholly rejects the doctrine of inspiration. To 
be sure he quotes some Scripture, but never as 
inspired. "Theories of inspiration," he says, 
"have lately been passing out of sight." The 
word inspiration, he declares, is "ancient, am- 
biguous" and "confusing." The "idea of in- 
spiration" is "ancient"; as though a doctrine 
may not be both ancient and true. And in this he 
does not inveigh against some unreasonable 
theory of inspiration, but against the fact of in- 
spiration. We make this statement not for the 
purpose of combatting the author's position in 
reference to inspiration, but that we may fully 
understand his point of view; that we may get 
to his headquarters, where we can view things 
with his eyes and justly appreciate his reasoning. 

Now, untrammeled by any notion of inspira- 
tion, he lays down the principle around which all 
of his discussion gathers; but before he enun- 
ciates it, he eulogistically apologizes for it. He 
says that it is " clear and sound. ' ' And before he 
finishes this lecture (p. 82) he says, "Now for a 
moment I must sing the praises of the principle 
that I have been trying to set forth." We have 
a right to expect that a principle so magnified, 
both before and after its announcement, should 
be new in theology. But is our expectation real- 
ized! Hear the author. "The principle is, that 

[207] 



Science and Prayer 

the Christian element in the Scriptures is the in- 
dispensable and formative element in Christian 
theology, and is the only element in the Scriptures 
which Christian theology is either required or 
permitted to receive as contributing to its 
substance.' ' 

Now the author even ventures to think that 
this statement has a self-evident sound. He did 
not make a very bold venture. That principle 
has been accepted and acted upon by all Christian 
theologians since the Apostolic era. The tug of 
war comes only when the task is undertaken of 
finding out what is the Christian element in the 
Bible. This the author apprehends. " Here/' he 
says, "questions throng." 

But he seems to us to fail in the just application 
of his "clear and sound" principle. He properly 
begins his discussion of it with the teaching of 
Christ concerning God and man and their rela- 
tions to each other, and declares that Christ, not 
only by what he says reveals God, but that he is 
himself the revelation of God. What Christ says 
about God, in statements more or less full, he 
several times repeats. Take a somewhat diffuse, 
but eloquent expression of it in his second lecture, 
(p. 58), Christ "assumed in God the reality of all 
that men need to find in him. A God for men to 
love, to trust, and to adore, a God who hates evil 
and desires to save men from its control, a God 
of free, forgiving grace, a God to whom men are 
precious and who seeks them in love, that he 
may make them what they ought to be, a God, 

[208] 



Scriptures in Theology 

indeed, whose holy love is expressed in the love 
of Christ himself, which goes to death in order 
that it may save, — such a God Jesus has 
manifested and commended to our faith and 
affection. ' ' 

This, Dr. Clarke teaches, is the core of Chris- 
tian theology. Whatever in the Bible, in the Old 
Testament or the New Testament agrees with this 
is Christian and should find place in Christian 
theology; whatever disagrees with it should be 
ruled out. 

But has not the author made the basis of his 
Christian theology too narrow ? Why build alone 
on what Christ taught concerning God and his 
attitude towards man? Why should not a Chris- 
tian theologian take up into his theology all that 
Christ taught? Can he fail to do so, if he abides 
by the principle that the author has laid down 
with such a flourish of trumpets? Was there no 
law in Christ's teaching? He said that he came 
not to destroy the law, but to fill it out. He did 
not set it aside, but gave to it a new interpreta- 
tion, showing how broad it is; that it lays hold 
of, and measures, not only outward conduct, but 
the thoughts and affections of the soul. He de- 
clared to his disciples that unless their righteous- 
ness exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees 
they could in no case enter into the kingdom of 
God. In a word we find in his teaching the 
distilled essence of God's law. 

But Dr. Clarke has not included in his basis of 
Christian theology Christ's teaching of the law. 

[209] 



Science and Prayer 

Why not? Are we to receive some of his teach- 
ings and to ignore or reject others? Did Christ 
teach what is not Christian? That would be the 
absurdity of absurdities. Dr. Clarke says (p. 86), 
"whatever is in unison with the mind of Christ 
may enter' ' into Christian theology. And again, 
"As for law, the idea of obligation which it en- 
shrines is perfectly Christian, just as it is per- 
fectly natural and external." And yet he does 
not put it in with those teachings of Christ from 
which all Christian theology flows. 

Nor in ascertaining the mind of Christ does he 
make any reference to his numerous utterances 
in which he expressed his hot indignation against 
sin, especially against hypocrisy and oppression. 
For example, have Christ's seven woes in the 
twenty-third chapter of Matthew no place in 
Christian theology? Is there in Christ no wrath 
against sin? Is he the revelation of a milk-and- 
water God? 

In fact our author does not once allude to 
Christ's teachings concerning sin; teachings most 
vital and profound, which stand apart from all 
that Jew or Gentile taught in reference to it; 
which placed sin neither in the outward act, as 
did the Pharisee, nor in the intellect, as did the 
Greek, but in the affections, way down in the 
centre of man's being. Out of the heart, Christ 
said, proceed evil thoughts. Why omit such 
teachings from Christian theology? 

Moreover, Dr. Clarke makes no reference to 
what Christ taught concerning his own person, 

[210] 



Scriptures in Theology 

the necessity of his death, the judgment, and his 
resurrection. Have these great truths no place 
in a theology, which flows directly from Christ's 
teaching? If we are to have a theology on such 
a basis, let us put into that basis all of Christ's 
authentic utterances. Dr. Clarke has made the 
basis very much too narrow by ignoring in his 
criterion a large part of what Christ taught. 

Then on this too narrow basis, made up simply 
of what Christ taught concerning God, the author 
starts out in quest of the Christian element in 
the rest of the Scriptures. But how shall we know 
that element? Why, nothing is easier; just "look 
at it and discern the quality" in it, just as you 
discern ' ' the blue in the sky. ' ' 

This seems to be simple and charming. This 
might perhaps captivate some of the callow and 
unthinking. Of course if we already know a 
truth, we recognize it wherever we find it. If that 
truth is expressed by Paul and we find it also in 
Genesis or Isaiah of course we identify it. If we 
learn from Christ that we ought to forgive our 
enemies, and read that David spared Saul, who 
was endeavoring to take his life, we say at once 
that is the forgiveness of an enemy incarnated. 
But by such a process we can never discover any 
new truth. The truth that we hold we may find in 
Scriptures where we had never before discerned 
it, but it is the same truth that we already have 
in possession. 

To be sure we know some truths intuitively; 
not that we discover them intuitively; discovery 

[211] 



Science and Prayer 

is one thing, intuitive apprehension is another. 
But when certain truths are taught us or are dis- 
covered by us, they are so fitted to our intellectual 
and moral natures, that we receive them as veri- 
ties without proof or process of reasoning. But 
this is not what our author is talking about. He 
starts with certain truths made known by Christ 
concerning God and man to find in the Bible 
truth of like quality. ' ' Look at it, ' ' he says, ' ( and 
discern the quality." You ascertain it by com- 
parison of qualities. Now if in this quest our 
author had taken along with him, so far as he 
was able, all the teachings of Christ, he would 
have found in the Bible much more of the Chris- 
tian element than he has apparently discovered. 

But starting with the truth concerning God 
outlined by our author, let us now ask who by 
looking at it, and discerning its quality, shall 
ascertain what is the Christian element in the 
Bible? You, as an individual! or I? Is each 
Christian believer to determine the Christian 
element for himself alone, without respect to 
others 1 As no two would fully agree, if each one 
wrought out a system of theology, should we not 
have a bewildering medley of theologies? The 
author declares that on his ground, we should 
have a standard of theology; what we determine 
to be Christian in the Bible would constitute that 
standard. But what a confusing variety of 
standards there would be ! Christ himself taught 
some things that Dr. Clarke rejects. Then Paul 
discerned in the Old Testament some things that 

[212] 



Scriptures in Theology 

he believed to be Christian, that our author 
squarely repudiates. Then the Greek and Latin 
Christians looked into the Scriptures and pointed 
out what they believed to be Christian ; so did the 
reformers of the sixteenth century in Germany 
and England; so have the great theologians and 
preachers of the past century both in Europe 
and America, but our author disagrees with them 
all. 

Where there is such disagreement as to what is 
the Christian element in the Bible, is there any 
use in searching for it? Most assuredly there is. 
But the value of the search comes from a com- 
bination of the results reached by all. The solid- 
arity of the race is certainly no more true than 
that of Christian believers. The great apostle 
called them the body of Christ. What believers 
as a whole, believers of the past centuries and be- 
lievers of the present day substantially agree 
upon as Christian in the Bible we may pretty 
safely trust. And this does not shut us up in any 
cast-iron system. The spirit of free inquiry is 
abroad. New light breaks in on the meaning of 
the word of God; and all real advances in the 
knowledge of the Bible will be taken up into the 
universal consciousness of Christendom and will 
find healthful and fruitful expression. Just as 
the people of the United States receive, largely 
unwittingly, the ethics of the New Testament as 
common law, so what is Christian in the Bible be- 
lievers as a body discern and receive. If we are 
to appeal to the Christian consciousness to ascer- 

[213] 



Science and Prayer 

tain what is the Christian element in the Scrip- 
tures, let us not appeal alone to our own subjec- 
tive consciousness, nor to the subjective con- 
sciousness of some school of theologians, but to 
the universal Christian consciousness; if we do 
this and abide by the result, we shall not probably 
go far astray. 

But this disturbs our author. He looks on the 
great mass of believers as in almost hopeless 
error in reference to the Bible. There are only an 
elect few that really understand it. " There is," 
he says, ' ' a popular religious view of the Bible, ' ' 
and ' ' a well accepted scholarly view, ' ' but, to use 
his own words, "between these two there is in- 
deed an appalling difference, which nevertheless 
must some day be overcome. The problem is upon 
us." 

What appals him ought, on his own principle, 
to cheer him. It shows him that the great mass 
of Christian believers are already in agreement 
as to what is Christian in the Bible; and with 
them stand many of the profoundest biblical 
scholars ; while a few scholars have views of the 
Bible somewhat different from the vast mass of 
their brethren. Between the multitude and the 
few let brotherly love continue; but if we are to 
determine what is Christian in the Bible by just 
looking at it and seeing its quality, why should 
our author be appalled because hosts of believers, 
making, in strict accordance with his own prin- 
ciple, the search for this Christian element in 
the Scriptures, have found much more of it than 

[214] 



Scriptures in Theology 

he has discovered? Are the discoveries of the few 
to be preferred to the discoveries of the many? 
Is the testimony of the many to be invalidated 
by that of a self-selected few? It is a pity 
that a man should stand appalled at the out- 
come of his own method of getting at the 
truth. 

But since, in his judgment, the multitude can- 
not be trusted in this quest for the Christian ele- 
ment in the Scriptures, he kindly leads the way. 
He starts out with a criterion. It is what Christ 
teaches about God and man and their relations 
to one another. This he declares is the crown 
and glory of revelation. In his search he first 
turns backward to the Old Testament to find what 
may be Christian there. Whatever he finds in 
those more ancient records that has the quality 
of the very crown of revelation is Christian; 
where that quality does not appear, there may be 
suggestive history, but nothing more. Is this a 
fair procedure? Does our author sufficiently 
keep in mind that the Bible is a progressive rev- 
elation of God? That real Christian truth may 
have been for a long period but partially re- 
vealed? Yet, what was revealed was truly Chris- 
tian? If a man should now take the most per- 
fectly constructed steam-engine, and going back- 
ward in time should say, "Whatever agrees with 
this is a steam-engine, and what does not may 
belong to history, but is not a steam-engine, ' ' we 
should think him quite unfair and illogical. Any 
improvement in the engine which he now regards 

[215] 



Science and Prayer 

as a criterion would in turn set it aside as no en- 
gine at all. But the crude engine at the beginning 
was a real engine; it was never set aside; it has 
been improved from time to time till it has 
reached its present state of perfection. So, far 
back in the past God was imperfectly but really- 
revealed to men ; and as time swept on the revela- 
tion of his character became more and more 
complete until we reach the highest revelation of 
Him in Jesus Christ. 

That Dr. Clarke did not keep in mind as he 
should have done the progress of doctrine, as it 
is presented to us in the Bible, is clear from the 
whole sweep of his discussion, and also from the 
phrases which he employs. He says in his last 
lecture, that in early times God was not "rightly 
known" (p. 132), or "rightly pictured"; where 
fully known, or correctly pictured, would seem to 
be preferable. He says again that we must set 
forth "the right God." Such expressions show 
very plainly that the development of doctrine finds 
scant place in our author's consciousness. 

But having pointed out what seems to us a 
serious defect in these lectures, let us follow the 
author, so far as time will permit, while he brings 
the Old Testament to the touchstone of his crite- 
rion. But at the very start he abandons his 
chosen method and declares that what Genesis 
says about "the manner in which the world and 
man were created" and "concerning the origin 
of human sin" is not historical, and so has 
nothing to do with Christian theology. 

[216] 



Scriptures in Theology 

This is a strange reason for rejecting a section 
of Scripture as a source of theology. While the 
Sermon on the Mount has an historical setting, 
it in itself is not a relation of history, nevertheless 
it contains considerable material for theology. 
The eighth chapter of Eomans is not historical, 
i. e. in it no history is related, but it is a rich the- 
ological mine. Does Dr. Clarke propose to rend 
in pieces the first chapters of Genesis, to tear out 
of the web of this section of the Scriptures the 
account of the creation of the world and of man 
and of the. origin of sin and leave the rest of it? 
This would be a bold procedure even for the most 
destructive critic. However one would naturally 
think from his silence on this point that he sum- 
marily rules out the first chapters of Genesis as 
contributing nothing to theology. "In the be- 
ginning God created the heavens and the earth,' ' 
does not that belong to Christian theology? "So 
God created man in his own image,' ' does not 
that belong to Christian theology, and does it not 
belong to the "manner" in which God created 
man? The seed of the woman "shall bruise thy 
head (the serpent's head) and thou shalt bruise 
his heel." Does not that belong to Christian 
theology ? Man disobeyed God and was punished 
for it. Is that no contribution to Christian the- 
ology? In the nineteenth chapter of Matthew 
Christ quotes words from the first, second, and 
fifth chapters of Genesis, which he regarded as 
the very foundation of monogamy. Has that no 
place in Christian theology? (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; 

[217] 



Science and Prayer 

5:2). "And Enoch walked with God; and he 
was not for God took him. ' ' That seems to har- 
monize with Christian theology. 

As to the historical character of these first 
chapters of Genesis advanced critics differ. The 
fact of the creation of the universe, of man in 
God's image, of creation in different periods is 
evidently scientific and historical. The account 
of man's sinning seems to be the rub with our 
author. He gives a separate paragraph to it. 
But because we have the story of it in symbolical 
language, does that show it to be unhistorical ! 
Much of the history of Assyria and Egypt is 
written in symbols. Paul explicitly refers to 
man's creation in his first epistle to Timothy 
and treats it as history, also in Eomans as 
a fact well accredited, and in his first epistle 
to the Corinthians he speaks of "the first 
man, Adam." It is quite possible that he knew 
as much about the subject as some modern 
critics. 

But Dr. Clarke says that so far as he knows, 
Christ never referred to "the origin of human 
sin" (p. 90). We have no reference in his re- 
corded utterances to the passage in Genesis on 
which we have commented; but he does refer, it 
seems to me, to the fact that man was once in a 
different condition from that in which he is now. 
He spoke of him as lost. He emphasized that. 
He wrote three great parables to set forth the sad 
fact, the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and 
the lost son ; and he declared that the great object 

[218] 



Scriptures in Theology 

for which he came into the world was "to seek 
and to save that which was lost" (Lk. 19:10). 
Man once in a happier state wandered from it 
and got lost. Then, as we have already seen, 
Christ does quote words from these unhistorical 
chapters. 

But why is our author, together with men of 
his school of thought, so anxious to get rid of the 
account of the origin of sin! Would the admission 
of it vitiate theology? If sin is not eternal it 
began sometime and somewhere. It is universal 
among men now. But those who object to the 
account of its origin as given in the third chapter 
of Genesis, do so because they believe that ac- 
count to be unscientific, contradictory to the law 
of evolution. Now, without discussing at all the 
doctrine of evolution, it seems to me that they 
unwittingly misrepresent it. They regard the 
process of evolution when once begun as going 
steadily on and upward in an unbroken line. 
Scientists do not so understand it. As they trace 
its workings in the physical universe they discover 
that it is irregular in its onward movement ; that 
there has been not only progression but also at 
times startling retrogression. If under the law 
of evolution there has been in the physical uni- 
verse such retrogression, why not in the sphere 
of the moral or spiritual? The doctrine of the 
fall of man, in my judgment, in no way conflicts 
with the best established deliverances of science 
on evolution. That which is both Scriptural and 
scientific, and pertains to the very heart of Chris- 

[219] 



Science and Prayer 

tian theology should not be turned out of doors 
by a Christian theologian. 

Having, to his own satisfaction, disposed of the 
first chapters of Genesis, Dr. Clarke finds in the 
rest of the Old Testament considerable material 
that should have place in Christian theology. 
Much found in the messages of the prophets, the 
best of the Psalms, and "illuminating history/ 9 
presenting the struggle "toward true knowledge 
of God, ' ' all make valuable contributions to Chris- 
tian theology. To be sure Dr. Clarke makes in 
reference to this no very definite statements; he 
does not clearly draw the line between what in the 
prophets and the Psalms he regards as Christian 
and what as non-Christian; but by his general 
statements he leaves upon my mind the im- 
pression that, in his judgment, the Christian 
element in the Old Testament is by no means 
insignificant. 

But now, not departing from his headquarters, 
we wonder that he is not more specific. We re- 
fresh our minds with what he has put into his 
criterion, teachings concerning God and man and 
their relations to one another, which he calls the 
crown of revelation. Whatever is kin to this is 
Christian. As one drags a magnet through sand 
and iron-filings in order to gather out the latter 
from their baser surroundings, so with the pas- 
sages of Scripture that are the crown of revela- 
tion, he sweeps through the Old Testament, that 
he may gather out all that has affinity to them. 
By that process he should have found something 

[220] 



Scriptures in Theology 

more specific; he might have discovered in the 
Old Testament every thought contained in those 
sayings of Christ that he styles "the crown of 
revelation. ' ' 

Here of course the stress is upon the attitude 
of God towards men; and the Old Testament de- 
clares the mercy and compassion of God towards 
men with an emphasis and iteration that cannot 
be matched in the New;* and forgiveness for sin 
is set forth with such richness and fulness that 
the Christian instinctively turns to the Old Scrip- 
tures that his assurance of God's forgiveness may 
he reinforced. In substantiation of our claim let 
us cite a few declarations from the Old Testa- 
ment. I think that our author cannot justly ob- 
ject to this, even though he is opposed to the 
proof -text method, since every now and then he 
quotes a text, when he thinks that it will serve 
him a good turn ; and even his criterion, by which 
he professes to measure all theology, is made up 
from the sayings of Christ. So let us, by spe- 
cific declarations found in the Old Testament, 
see in what attitude God was declared to stand 
towards men, hundreds of years before Christ 
came. 

In the very heart of the decalogue, while God 
is represented as "visiting the iniquity of the 
fathers upon the children unto the third and 
fourth generations of them that hate" him, it is 
also declared that he shows mercy unto thousands 
(of generations) of them that love him and keep 

* Schultz 's Old Testament Theology, Goettengen. 

[221] 



Science and Prayer 

his commandments. On Sinai, where the law was 
given, the Lord passed before Moses and pro- 
claimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness 
and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiv- 
ing iniquity and transgression and sin" (Ex. 
34:6-7). 

During the time of Zedekiah, amid widespread 
corruption, a Bible historian declares that the 
Lord God sent his messengers unto his rebellious 
people, "rising up betimes and sending, because 
he had compassion on his people, and on his 
dwelling place" (2 Chron. 36: 15). In many pas- 
sages in the prophets God is represented in the 
same way; and the Psalms, which are the expres- 
sion of individual experience, abound with decla- 
rations of God's love and compassion to men. 
He pities them as a father does his children 
(103:13), is more tender than an earthly father 
and mother; "when my father and my mother 
forsake me, then the Lord will take me up" (27: 
10). The Lord delights in mercy, he is gracious 
and full of compassion (145:7), his paths are 
mercy and truth (25 : 10), unto him mercy belongs 
(62:12), he is plenteous in mercy (86:5), his 
mercy is everlasting (100:5), and it is great 
above the heavens (108:4). These are simply 
representative utterances. Is it not clear that the 
lawgiver, and the Prophets and Psalmists of 
Israel knew the Lord that Jesus proclaimed to 
men? Also the relation between Jehovah and his 
people is the same as that set forth by Christ; 

[222] 



Scriptures in Theology 

"I shall be their God and they shall be my 
people" is the prophetic word. 

And as to the duty of men to God and to one 
another, Jesus drew the Godward precept from 
Deuteronomy and the manward from Leviticus. 
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
might' ' (Deut. 6:5), and "thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself ' (Lev. 19:18). "On these 
two commandments, ' ' said Christ, "hang all the 
law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:40). 

Even from this cursory survey, it is evident to 
my own mind, that Jesus' teaching concerning 
God and man is not the crown of revelation. His 
words on these subjects contain nothing that had 
not before been announced, nothing that is not 
found in the Old Testament. To this we shall 
return again. 

In the meantime we will still further follow our 
author in his search for material which, in his 
judgment, has rightfully a place in Christian the- 
ology. He turns to the New Testament; here as 
in the Old Testament he makes some eliminations. 
In these eliminations he surprises us by beginning 
with the words of Christ. All the words of 
Christ, whose utterances concerning God and man 
are considered the crown of revelation, are not 
fit material for Christian theology. The author 
admits that in the 24th of Matthew, Christ is rep- 
resented as teaching his second coming. But the 
whole notion of the second coming is Jewish; so 
either Christ unwittingly fell into the popular 

[223] 



Science and Prayer 

notion concerning it, or declarations are attrib- 
uted to him that he never made. The first sup- 
position is abhorrent, and the last is a too 
common makeshift to get rid of some supposed 
difficulty. 

While we believe the author's genesis of the 
doctrine of the second coming of Christ to be a 
figment of the imagination, he ought to have ex- 
plained why a notion is necessarily untrue simply 
because it is Jewish. Is nothing that is Jewish 
true? 

As to the doctrine of the second coming of 
Christ our author's contention seems to be, Christ 
has not come according to apostolic expectation 
and therefore he will not; and if he should come 
again it would be a retrograde, rather than an ad- 
vanced, movement. That Christ will not come 
again, no man can declare, since no man knows; 
what seems delay to us very likely is not so to 
Him with whom a thousand years are as one day. 
And as to his coming being contrary to the pres- 
ent development of Christianity, we should not 
forget how the personal appearance of Christ 
subdued and transformed Saul of Tarsus, and 
that the last of the apostles wrote, "When he 
shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall 
see him as he is." 

But our author not only rejects the doctrine of 
the second coming of Christ as foreign to Chris- 
tian theology, but also all ideas in Paul's epistles 
which are expressed in terms of Jewish sacrifice 
or in forms of Roman law. He also rules out for 

[224] 



Scriptures in Theology 

the flimsiest reasons, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
and quite ignores the Eevelation. Time will not 
permit us to go into a discussion of these things. 
While these rejected Scriptures are not neces- 
sarily antagonistic to what Christ taught con- 
cerning God, they have so little in common with 
it, that fhe author from his point of view, must 
necessarily reject them. He thinks them to be 
on a lower plane. That is an hallucination ; they 
are on a higher plane. 

But in his eliminating process two things de- 
mand our special attention. Like all of his class 
of interpreters he wishes to efface the representa- 
tion of God as a King. He grants of course that 
the Scriptures so present him to us, and that 
even Christ is so characterized in the New Testa- 
ment. But while this was fitting enough in past 
ages, it is no longer so. It suggests arbitrariness 
in God, makes one think of him as tyrannical. 
Even if we recall to mind that i ' the King eternal, 
immortal, invisible" is absolutely wise and just, 
and in love so identifies himself with his subjects 
that he regards whatever is done to them as done 
to himself, still we cannot free the name from its 
bad associations. So this name so often in the 
past given to God or God in Christ must be rele- 
gated to everlasting oblivion. How does Dr. 
Clarke attempt to sweep away so inveterate a 
mode of speech? His method of doing it is fas- 
cinating on account of its simplicity. In spite of 
the viciousness of the proof-text method, he 
quotes Jesus' words to the Samaritan woman; 

[225] 



Science and Prayer 

"God is a Spirit; and they that worship him 
must worship him in spirit and in truth ;" and 
then tells us that by this declaration Jesus swept 
away all anthropomorphisms; and of course the 
representation of God as a King went with the 
rest. 

Now that seems to be neatly done; the only 
trouble with it is it is not true. "We cannot think 
of personality at all except in the terms of per- 
sonality with which we are familiar; on that ac- 
count we can no more get rid of anthropomor- 
phisms than we can get rid of ourselves. Christ 
never intended that we should. He said, when 
you pray say, "Our Father." Over and over 
again he called God his Father. Is not that an- 
thropomorphism? Does .Dr. Clarke refuse to say, 
"The Lord is my shepherd"? but to call God a 
shepherd is rank anthropomorphism. He who 
taught his disciples to say "Our Father" also 
taught them to pray, l i Thy kingdom come. ' ' We 
can 't have a kingdom without a king. In the most 
solemn hour of Jesus' earthly career he declared 
that he had a kingdom and acknowledged to 
Pilate that he was a king. Just the anthropo- 
morphism that seems to trouble our author. 
After his resurrection he announced that all au- 
thority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
That looks like sovereignty and suggests a throne. 

But the second thing in this part of our dis- 
cussion to claim our attention for a moment is 
still more weighty and serious. In his criterion, 
made up of what Jesus taught about God, he finds 

[226] 



Scriptures in Theology 

no mention made of sacrifice. So in the applica- 
tion of this criterion he gets rid of all propitiation. 

If he means that he has gotten rid of the 
heathenish idea that an angry God is appeased by 
bloody sacrifice, all intelligent Christian men are 
with him the world over; but if he means that 
Christ did not offer himself a sacrifice to God on 
our behalf, we are compelled to take issue with 
him. Evidently there was something in God that 
demanded the sacrifice of Christ. While God's 
law is, "The soul that sins shall die," the sinless 
One died; as the apostle says, "The just for the 
unjust.' ' He who demanded the sacrifice made it. 
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto him- 
self. The death of the spotless Christ for our 
sins, both met the demand in God for the punish- 
ment of sin, and set forth before the universe the 
exceeding sinfulness of sin. 

Our author seems to reverse the Scriptural idea 
of sacrifice. In the Bible sacrifice is always 
spoken of as primarily offered unto God. The 
sacrifices of Israel were so offered. So the sac- 
rifice of Christ is represented in the New Testa- 
ment. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
says, "who (Christ) through an eternal Spirit 
offered himself without spot to God." Sacrifices 
of praise were offered to God. Even a gift to 
Paul from the Church at Philippi is called by 
him "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God." 
Such is the universal use of the word in the Scrip- 
tures. But our author, together with the school 
to which he belongs, uses the word to designate 

[ 227 ] 



Science and Prayer 

exclusively something done at cost to ourselves 
for our fellowmen. The thought thus expressed 
is thoroughly Christian, but not the main idea of 
Scriptural sacrifice. And when our author gets 
rid of propitiation he seems to mean that he gets 
rid of the Godward reach of sacrifice; that is, in 
his judgment, sacrifice to God has apparently no 
place in Christian theology. 

To substantiate his position he declares that 
Christ in his teaching never referred to sacrifice 
in that sense. Well, at all events, his forerunner 
did. Pointing out Jesus to his disciples he ex- 
claimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world." And Jesus con- 
firmed these words of John the Baptist. He was 
showing his disciples that true greatness in his 
kingdom is obtained only through service, and 
declared that "the Son of Man also came not to 
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give 
his life a ransom for many. ■ ' Dr. Clarke, unfold- 
ing the meaning of these words in his Commentary 
on Mark, says : 

"A ransom is the price paid for the release of prisoners 
or captives. The word for, in the sense of "instead of" (a 
ransom for many) is entirely appropriate, since ransom is 
naturally conceived of as taking the place of the persons who 
are delivered by it, or serving instead of them. An idea of 
vicariousness, or action in the place of others, resides in this 
word, as well as in the word ransom itself. The phrase falls 
in with the other language of Scripture, which represents the 
giving up of his life as the indispensable means for the deliv- 
erance of men from sin; and of this he was thinking when 
he spoke of the supreme act of service, the giving of his life 
a ransom for many. In order to minister thus to men he came 
into the world." 

[228] 



Scriptures in Theology 

Again in his comment on these words (Mk. 14: 
24), "This is my blood of the covenant which is 
shed for many," he declares, Christ "says that 
he sheds his own blood as covenant blood to bring 
God and man into the actual union and fellowship 
promised in the Xew Covenant. His offering of 
himself is to be acceptable in the sight of God 
as the blood sprinkled on the altar was, and it is 
to be accepted by men, through faith, as the means 
by which they are brought into "the eternal cov- 
enant" of genuine fellowship with God." . . . 
"His offering of himself reaches Godward and 
manward. ' ' 

This is so obviously the teaching of Christ that 
it is pitiable to think that the author now avers 
that Jesus never referred to his offering himself 
a sacrifice to God. 

But we now come to our final criticism. "We 
are told that in constructing a Christian theology 
we are not strictly confined to the Christian ele- 
ment in the Bible, but whatever truly flows out of 
that element, whatever congruous inference may 
be made from it belongs to the very substance of 
theology. The theologian is to set before himself 
"that glorious body of living truth which Jesus 
has given us," and he is invited to contribute "if 
he is able to the positive contents of theology" 
(p. 86). Perhaps he can do this. "He may be 
able to rule out, with divine authority, something 
that has remained to vex theology by its incon- 
gruous character." This may be possible. There 
is no a priori objection to any man's adding some- 

[229] 



Science and Prayer 

thing to the very substance of theology. But who 
has ever added to theology an iota of truth 
not found in the Bible? Bring on your man, 
and let him bring on the addition that he has 
made! 

But we should care little for what the author 
has said on this score, were it not for the fact that 
he represents the apostles simply as ordinary 
theologians, making deductions from Christ's 
teachings. While what they said is not " identical 
in expression or in thought' ' (p. 136) with him, 
it is a development from him. When John wrote, 
i ' God is love, ' ' it was ' ' a conclusion drawn ' ' from 
the effect of Christ's revelation (p. 148); and 
much more of like import. 

In all this, he does not, it sems to me, deal with 
the apostles in the scientific spirit, in strict ac- 
cordance with the facts. When he considers the 
weight or authority of their utterances as com- 
pared with those of Christ, he makes no account 
of the fact that they like their Lord were led by 
the Spirit, and that their apprehension of the 
truth by the illumination of the Spirit, was simply 
the carrying out of Christ's purpose concerning 
them. He announced to the apostles, ' * I have yet 
many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear 
them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, 
is come, he will guide you into all truth." For 
that reason, whether certain men think it to be 
sufficient or not, many of the ablest theologians 
have received the deliverances of the apostles as 
equally authoritative with those of the Master. 

[230] 



Scriptures in Theology 

But our author insists that there is a Pauline, 
and a Johanine gospel, and that while each was 
a "development" from Christ's teaching, each 
differed from it; that is, did not in all respects 
truthfully represent it, or was in some respects 
contradictory to it. But can any man show that 
the apostles in presenting the truths of the gospel 
ever parted company with their Lord! Each in- 
deed had his own style of utterance, but was as 
true to the doctrine of Christ as is the needle to 
the pole. He differed from his Master only in 
presenting some new aspects of truth into which 
the Spirit led him, and which the disciples were 
not fitted to receive from the lips of their Lord. 
For example, Paul gave a loftier view of mar- 
riage than Christ did. In his epistle to the Ephe- 
sians (Eph. 5:23-25), he glorifies the relation by 
declaring it to be like that which subsists between 
Christ and the church. The apostles give us a 
grander view of Christ than we find in the gos- 
pels ; they present him to us in his glory, only a 
glimpse of which during his earthly ministry was 
caught on the mount of transfiguration; a glory 
that does not remove him from us, since he comes 
to us in the Spirit and dwells in us as in a temple. 
Though he has passed into the heavens he is still 
touched with the feeling of our infirmities. And 
it remained for him whom Jesus specially loved 
to reach the grandest height in the revelation of 
God, so that he wrote, ' ' God is love. ' ' — Was that 
a conclusion drawn from Christ's teaching con- 
cerning the character of God, as a logician draws 

[231] 



Science and Prayer 

a conclusion from certain established premises? 
Did not rather this profoundest truth concerning 
God pour forth from the depths of John's per- 
sonal experience, as he was touched and illum- 
inated by the divine Spirit? 

But why does our author entertain what seems 
to us to be a low and unworthy view of the apos- 
tles? Chiefly, I think, in mistaking what is the 
crown of revelation. We have already pointed 
out that if that crown is merely the teachings of 
Christ, Dr. Clarke ought in consistency to include 
in it all of Christ's utterances. Making the teach- 
ings of Christ in their totality the criterion of 
what should find place in Christian theology, the 
scope and substance of that theology would be far 
greater than is contemplated by the author. And 
we have also already shown that what Christ 
taught concerning the character of God is found 
in the Old Testament. So, important as that 
teaching is, it is evidently not the crown of revela- 
tion. Jesus Christ himself is its crown. Not 
what Christ said, but what Christ is and what 
Christ did is the crown of revelation. To be sure 
Dr. Clarke himself asserts that Christ is the rev- 
elation of God to us, but he makes little or no use 
of the fact in determining what in the Scriptures 
is Christian. If he had firmly held on to that fact, 
and added it to his criterion for determining what 
from the Scriptures should enter into Christian 
theology, he would have shown greater hospital- 
ity to apostolic teaching. He would not have 
treated so scantily and obscurely the death and 

[232] 



Scriptures in Theology 

resurrection and glorification of Christ. If he 
had at all properly estimated what Jesus did on 
his cross, he would not have so summarily dis- 
missed the epistle to the Hebrews, and he would 
not practically have ignored the fact that we have 
in the cross the highest exhibition of God's right- 
eousness and love, and in Christ's resurrection 
the irrefragable proof that he is the Son of God. 
He is thereby declared, says Paul, " to be the Son 
of God with power.' ' It was chiefly with this 
crown of divine revelation in Christ that the 
apostles had to do, not with what Jesus said 
about God. 

This is clearly evident from the most cursory 
examination of the New Testament. Even in the 
gospels where are recorded the matchless sayings 
of Jesus, large space is given to his judicial trial, 
condemnation, death, burial and resurrection. He 
himself laid the emphasis on his death. Just be- 
fore Gethsemane and the cross he said to his 
disciples; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except 
a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it 
abideth alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth much 
fruit." All that he had said would be fruitless 
without his death. He gave to his followers a 
perpetual memorial, not of his sayings, but of his 
death. Whatever else they forgot, he wanted 
them to remember that, and to keep it in remem- 
brance, Paul said, "till he come." The apostles 
in their preaching did not dwell on the sayings of 
Christ, but on his death, resurrection and exalta- 
tion at the right hand of God. They were ab- 

[233] 



Science and Prayer 

sorbed in what Christ is and in what Christ 
wrought. 

That they were not chiefly occupied with the 
utterances of Christ is also confirmed by the fact 
that, as the ablest critics now generally agree, 
Paul's chief epistles were written before the gos- 
pels. How largely by tradition the sayings of 
Jesus may have found place in his mind, we can- 
not tell ; but in his writings he only now and then 
refers to any of them; but he dwells on Christ's 
death for our sins and his resurrection and glory. 
He probably never saw Christ except in his glory, 
and he proclaimed the glorified one. What di- 
rectly flowed out of these great facts he wrought 
into his theology. 

In accordance with this view, Dr. Bernhard 
Weiss says, "At the basis of the whole apostolic 
preaching, lies the assumption that the work of 
Christ was by no means completed during his 
earthly life, that this was rather the antecedent 
condition and the beginning of a work which will 
be carried on by the risen Christ through 
means entirely new and with all-embracing suc- 
cess, and which will be completed only in the 
future."* 

He also says, "The Christian faith would have 
remained just as it is, and lost no part of what is 
its deepest foundation, had it pleased God to leave 
only the Apostolic teaching as it lies before us in 
the epistles of the New Testament, and along with 
the Gospels, to deprive us of all information from 

* Weiss, The Life of Christ, vol. I, p. 11. 

[234] 



Scriptures in Theology 

which we might have wrought out for ourselves 
a detailed picture of Jesus' earthly life."* 

That is, the apostles with the great fact of 
Christ and what he did, guided by the Spirit, un- 
folded therefrom the great essential, saving 
truths of the gospel. But Dr. Clarke, thinking 
that he has the essence of revelation in what 
Christ says about God, for the most part ignores 
the most vital, fundamental truths of the gospel 
as set forth by the apostles. 

These are a few of the many considerations 
suggested to us as we read this small volume from 
the pen of Dr. Clarke. Other criticisms enticed 
us, which, for lack of time, we must leave un- 
spoken. But we cannot refrain from noticing in 
closing, 

First, that the book is a singular compound of 
subjectivism and objectivism. The author de- 
clares that the Scriptures are the basis of theol- 
ogy, but since only a part of them can be included 
in that basis, and what shall be admitted rests 
upon the subjective approval of each theologian, 
it is clear that the basis is uncertain and shifty. 
It may at any moment be enlarged or curtailed. 
The historical character of the gospel becomes of 
little or no account. The preponderating and 
shaping force of this theology is undeniably sub- 
jective. Just as the spider spins its gossamer 
thread from its own bowels, so a theologian of 
this stamp, in the main, spins his theology out of 
his own inner consciousness. But the spinning 

* Weiss, The Life of Christ, vol. I, p. 15. 

[235] 



Science and Prayer 

spider has one advantage over him, it attaches its 
thread to something solid, while he attaches his to 
a wave of the sea which is driven by the wind and 
tossed; the resultant theology must be unstable 
in all its parts. In fact with such a theory, what 
the writings of the Bible are, when or by whom 
composed, is of little or no value. This the author 
declares in his last lecture. He says (p. 145) that 
the Christian element " comes with power to 
render theology very largely independent of Bib- 
lical criticism.' ' He thus opens up a paradise to 
lazy preachers and theologians. Still, in his sec- 
ond lecture, he declares that his principle requires 
the theologian to have "all knowledge of the 
Bible" (p. 85). How he is to have it when very 
largely delivered from the study of biblical criti- 
cism, does not seem quite clear to the uninitiated. 
Second, the outcome of what our author advo- 
cates, as suggested by himself, is hardly alluring. 
In his last lecture he once more elaborately sets 
forth what Christ taught concerning the char- 
acter of God, and declares that in this light 
(p. 139) the questions of theology are solved. 
"What," in this light, "is the significance of 
Man ! Man is the beloved creature of such a God, 
bearing his likeness. What is sin? Sin is the 
opposite of such a God, spoiling such a creature. 
What is salvation? Salvation is the work of God 
for such a creature against such an evil. How is 
salvation accomplished? If we need to know, it 
is accomplished as such a God will accomplish it. 
What is the divine life in man? Life with such a 

[236] 



Scriptures in Theology 

God, wrought by such a God. What is human 
destiny? It is such as such a God will provide 
for such a creature.' ' Comment is unnecessary. 
For deft indefiniteness where can we find a para- 
graph to match it? 

Third, the downright dogmatism of the author 
is noteworthy. He seems to be cocksure in all his 
utterances. He evidently cherishes not the slight- 
est misgiving as to the main position which he 
sets forth and defends. Even the extreme results 
of the higher criticism, still regarded as doubtful 
by many of the critics themselves, he unhesitat- 
ingly receives as settled. His positiveness will 
be apt to convince some even when his cherished 
views have slight scientific foundation. Assur- 
edly offensive dogmatism is confined to no school 
of thought. 

Fourth, as to the question of authority, so much 
discussed just now, his statements to a reader like 
myself are somewhat confusing. He denies that the 
Scriptures are authoritative as to theology; they 
should not dictate but inspire theology. On this 
he is both clear and copious. But still he declares 
that "the idea of obligation which" the law "en- 
shrines is perfectly Christian. ' ' He also declares 
that in God is the seat of authority, to which all 
will readily assent. What is not fully clear is, if 
to God only belongs authority, and God's will and 
character are revealed to us in the Scriptures, 
why do not the Scriptures have some sort of au- 
thority in reference to theology? Then he asserts 
that theology is based on the Scriptures, and that 

[237] 



Science and Prayer 

the theologian may, with divine authority, rule 
out what vexes theology; if the theologian who 
gets his theology from the Scriptures has divine 
authority to rid theology of vexations, how is it 
that those Scriptures are utterly without author- 
ity in theology! How does the theologian have 
divine authority and the Scriptures none? This 
is puzzling to one on the outside. 

Fifth, the author in his first lecture insists at 
length that theologians, regarding the Scriptures 
as inspired, have treated the Bible as equal in all 
its parts. Now that is a man of straw; there 
never were any such theologians. While many 
of them have held that all the books of the Bible 
were written by inspired men, they have never 
regarded these books as equal in content and im- 
portance. For example, they have never re- 
garded the Chronicles as equal to the gospel of 
Matthew, or Ecclesiastes as equal to the Epistle 
to the Romans. 

But in a subsequent lecture, our author de- 
clares that all in the past (pp. 70-72), theologians 
included, have esteemed some Scriptures above 
others, have, in fact, really acted according to his 
principle in preferring one Scripture to another. 
This seems to me to be unquestionably true. But 
how can these two discordant representations 
moving on a single track in opposite directions, 
avoid a disastrous head collision? 

Sixth, our author's acceptance of the radical 
view in reference to the gospel of John, is at least 
somewhat suggestive. "This gospel,"' he says, 

[238] 



Scriptures in Theology 

"embodies what some great Christian has 
thought concerning Jesus" (p. 149). He again 
says : ' ' Perhaps, indeed, it is the work of a later 
spiritual genius, who portrays Jesus, and puts 
words in his mouth as he conceives him in the 
light of faith and love and theological reflection" 
(p. 148). This then is the author's conception; 
after the apostle John had passed away, some 
"spiritual genius" arose, who gave to the world 
by far the grandest and loftiest views of Christ 
that were ever uttered; who so vividly depicted 
scene after scene in the gospel as to make the 
acutest, ablest men of the church believe him to 
have been an eyewitness of what he portrayed; 
who put into the mouth of Jesus not only the dec- 
laration on which the author comments, "God is 
a Spirit," but also of course Christ's entire con- 
versation with the Samaritan woman, his contro- 
versial discourses with the Pharisees in the fifth, 
sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of the gospel, 
his farewell discourse to the disciples in the four- 
teenth, fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, and the 
Lord's great intercessory prayer in the seven- 
teenth chapter. A "spiritual genius!" Did the 
world ever see or even dream of the like? Yet, 
nobody since has ever identified him. 

But we must not overlook the fact that after, 
through "theological reflection," he had com- 
posed the discourse in the fourteenth, fifteenth, 
and sixteenth chapters of this gospel and the in- 
tercessory prayer in the seventeenth, and put 
them into the mouth of Christ, this man, capable 

[239] 



Science and Prayer 

of such profound spiritual insight and utterance, 
crowned his gospel with a lie. He said that he 
who wrote these things was that disciple whom 
Jesus loved, who leaned on his breast at supper. 
Such an explanation of the authorship of John's 
gospel makes too great a demand on credulity 
and common sense. 

Seventh, The Bible has been assaulted by critics 
from the time of Celsus till the present hour; 
it has often been unskillfully and foolishly inter- 
preted by its friends; but it has survived both 
friends and foes and keeps right on its beneficent 
way. Its endurance is one pregnant proof that 
it came from God. It will outlive all the merely 
theoretical solutions and readjustments of our 
time. All that modern scholarship discovers that 
is true will of course abide; all in its criticism 
that is not scientifically based will soon drop into 
oblivion. But the Bible in spite of all theorizing 
and crude discussion will survive. Upon the seal 
of the French Bible Society is the picture of a 
Bible in the form of an anvil, around which are 
lying many broken hammers, and under it is the 
motto : ' l The Hammers Break : The Anvil Abides 
Forever." The same thought is put still more 
eloquently by Peter (1 Pet. 1: 24) ; 

"All flesh is as grass, 
And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. 
The grass withereth, and the flower fadeth : 
But the word of the Lord abideth forever." 

Then Peter tells us what he means by the word : 
"And this is the word of good tidings which was 

[240] 



Scriptures in Theology 

preached unto you. ' ' He who wrote these words 
preached on the day of Pentecost. What was the 
word of good tidings that he proclaimed! Not 
the sayings of Christ about God, but Jesus of 
Nazareth himself; Jesus of Nazareth "approved 
of God unto you by mighty works, and wonders 
and signs"; Jesus of Nazareth crucified and 
slain; Jesus of Nazareth raised from the dead; 
Jesus of Nazareth exalted by the right hand of 
God; Jesus of Nazareth pouring forth the Holy 
Spirit upon men. This is the center and sub- 
stance of the word of God that lives and abides 
forever, the word that must be the warp and 
woof of all true Christian theology. 



[241] 



HOW TO DEVELOP CHRISTIAN 
BENEVOLENCE 



HOW TO DEVELOP CHRISTIAN 
BENEVOLENCE 

It is assumed in this topic that benevolence, at 
least in germ, already exists in Christians. This 
assumption is valid. Even among the heathen, 
where selfishness predominates, benevolence 
manifests itself spasmodically. This may be ac- 
counted for from the fact that while sin has de- 
faced, it has not utterly obliterated, the image of 
God in man. Hence we have, even in pagans, 
still some faint sporadic reflections of the divine 
benevolence. In the unconverted of Christian 
lands these manifestations are still more fre- 
quent. For while they do not possess the spirit 
of Christ, they have been lifted up by the general 
influence of Christianity, and have been uncon- 
sciously moulded by its precepts. Hence they 
frequently manifest by their acts of charity and 
by their gifts, its benevolence. But if this be true 
of the heathen, and of the unregenerate in com- 
munities nominally Christian, it is clear that 
those in whom the image of God has been re- 
traced by the divine Spirit, who have been filled, 
even partially, with the spirit of Christ, possess, 
at least, the beginnings of his benevolence. An 
avaricious Christian is simply a contradiction of 
terms. The divine life begins in giving ourselves 
and all that we have to Christ; the development 

[245] 



Science and Prayer 

of it can be secured only by forgetting self, and 
giving time and talent and money for the good of 
our fellow men, and the glory of God. And what- 
ever a man's experience or "frames" of mind 
may have been, if he has no benevolent impulses, 
he cannot be a Christian. But if in every true 
believer the benevolence of Christ has been im- 
planted, like all other Christian graces it needs to 
be unfolded. How can such development, so 
vastly important to Christian character, on the 
one hand, and to all our enterprises of benevo- 
lence on the other, be secured? 

First, by the general development of Christian 
character. While the graces of the believer are 
separable as objects of thought, they are, like 
buds on a tree, the manifestation of one indivis- 
ible life within. When one is quickened, all are 
quickened. If, therefore, we would unfold any 
special grace, we must stimulate and develop the 
life which underlies and feeds the whole. Just as 
a physician, who desires to bring into healthful 
action any organ of the body which has become 
torpid, tones up the whole system, so, if we wish 
to bring into vigorous exercise Christian benevo- 
lence, we must aim primarily to perfect the fel- 
lowship of believers with Christ. Filled, through 
such fellowship, with his life and his spirit, the 
entire Christian character will be invigorated and 
unfolded. Then the believer will find it easy to 
pray, and equally easy, according to his ability, 
to give. In fact such acts become the channels 
through which the divine life, pent up within, 

[246] 



Christian Benevolence 

must flow out. Giving to help others and to 
glorify God is as natural and agreeable to one 
who has real fellowship with Christ, as breathing 
is to our bodies. Hence it is that genuine revivals 
of religion pay church debts, inaugurate new 
mission enterprises, and put new life and power 
into the old. Covetousness in professors of re- 
ligion is as sure a sign of the decline or want 
of piety as prayerlessness. If then we would 
develop Christian benevolence, it must be our 
constant aim to promote in all our churches, 
genuine revivals of religion, and we must give 
ourselves no rest till we see the churches mani- 
festly swayed and controlled by the spirit of 
Christ. A soul when first brought into union 
with Christ possesses, in a measure, his benevo- 
lence. The more perfect that union becomes, the 
more expansive will be the benevolence which 
flows forth from such fellowship with the Lord. 

In the second place, Christian benevolence can- 
not be adequately developed without much special 
instruction on the duty of giving money to aid 
all important Christian enterprises. Such in- 
struction is absolutely demanded in reference to 
other Christian duties. All concede the import- 
ance of instructing the churches in such duties as 
prayer, exhortation, honesty, and the observance 
of the Sabbath. If without line upon line, pre- 
cept upon precept, such duties will not be ade- 
quately understood and faithfully performed, we 
cannot reasonably expect that the duty of giving 
will be without like full and persistent instruction. 

[247] 



Science and Prayer 

But by whom shall such instruction in benevo- 
lence be given? In some measure, by men out- 
side of our respective churches, who, by occasional 
addresses, may stir them up to give. The reli- 
gious press should help largely in this work. The 
laymen of our churches, who apprehend and feel 
the duty of giving, may do much, by word and 
example, toward leading their brethren to devote 
their wealth to Christ; but the responsibility in 
the main unquestionably rests on the pastors. 
As their spiritual leaders are, so on the whole 
will the churches be. If a pastor in his utterances 
manifests something of the tenderness and faith- 
fulness of Christ, he can, by persistency in in- 
struction and appeal, lift any church up out 
of penuriousness into benevolence. By what 
instrumentality 1 

He is called to expound God's word. This is 
his chief duty. He must, if he fulfils his calling, 
preach both the doctrines and duties of the Scrip- 
tures. As he enforces the duties, that of giving 
will find its place. All the warnings of God's 
word against covetousness, and trust in uncer- 
tain riches, all that is said concerning the right 
use of wealth, should be faithfully set forth in the 
pulpit. And since practical materialism shuts 
out from many minds the reality and importance 
of spiritual things, those Scriptures which pre- 
sent the transitory nature of material wealth 
should be enforced with special emphasis. Chris- 
tians who have wealth or are bending all their 
energies to accumulate it, should be often re- 

[248] 



Christian Benevolence 

minded that man shall not live by bread alone, 
that all their riches which do not contribute to 
the intellectual and spiritual elevation of them- 
selves and others are simply an unmitigated 
curse ; that only what they give for the good of 
their fellowmen and to glorify God is really 
saved. Quaint old Thomas Fuller said that Job 
lost his sheep, but saved his wool; for with the 
fleeces of his flocks he had warmed the loins of 
the poor. Pastors must do what they can to teach 
their churches this secret of saving money. Nor 
must they fail to set in a strong light the reflex 
influences of giving on the character of the giver. 
One object of all Christian duty is the unfolding 
of Christian character. Each duty has a blessing 
at both ends of it. It blesses both him to whom 
it is done, and him who does it. Now all the 
duties of the Christian life are necessary to se- 
cure, by their reflex influence, the complete and 
symmetrical development of the believer's char- 
acter. No duty can be omitted without irrepa- 
rable damage. As I passed along the street I saw 
a willow, green and thrifty on one side, but de- 
cayed on the other. It had no symmetry nor 
beauty. Its branches were twisted, the trunk was 
misshapen ; the living wood, on either side of that 
which was rotting away, was endeavoring to 
stretch itself over the decay, as if in shame it 
would hide from view the deformity. This, 
thought I, is a fitting symbol of those professors 
of religion who pray and read the Bible and are 
thereby green and thrifty on one side, but because 

[249] 



Science and Prayer 

they cannot be induced to give, are struck with 
the dry-rot of covetousness on the other. Their 
characters, instead of being symmetrical and at- 
tractive, are unsightly and repulsive. To secure 
a character fully rounded out, it is as necessary 
for men to give as to pray, and to give without 
ceasing as to pray without ceasing. 

Moreover, the duty of giving liberally should 
be urged upon the members of our churches, so 
far as it is possible, when they are in the first 
stages of their Christian experience. They should 
be taught, as early as practicable, the whole round 
of Christian duty. When they are received into 
the church they should be made to understand 
that giving must hold a prominent place among 
their duties; that they will be expected, accord- 
ing to their ability, to contribute cheerfully to 
sustain the services of the church with which they 
unite, and to aid the work of missions in all of 
its departments. To fix in their minds at such a 
time the responsibility of giving, is comparatively 
an easy task. Then their hearts are warm and 
susceptible to religious impressions; they are all 
aglow with new-born love for their Saviour; a 
suggestion from their pastor at such a time, made 
either in public or private, will usually be suf- 
ficient to lead them to put giving among the 
primal duties of the Christian life. When men 
have grown old in covetousness, they are often 
quite unimpressible. Lignum vitas only faintly 
suggests their hardness. If there is any gold in 
them, it can be gotten out only as they are broken 

[250] 



Christian Benevolence 

in pieces by God's law, as gold bearing quartz is 
shivered to atoms in a quartz crusher. Whether 
such men will ever get to heaven, the judgment 
will determine. Perhaps a camel will sooner go 
through the eye of a needle; but such covetous- 
ness, bringing with it possible eternal disaster, 
may, in many cases, be averted by teaching all 
young converts, when their hearts are susceptible 
to every good impression, the doctrine of Scrip- 
tural benevolence. 

And when men of wealth ask for admission into 
our churches, ought we not to determine before 
we receive them whether they are ready to give 
according to their means? Should we not as de- 
cisively refuse to baptize a covetous man as a 
prayerless one? We sometimes very fittingly ask 
an applicant for church membership, "Do you 
pray?" "Yes." "Do you enjoy prayer?" 
"Yes." Why not, at least in some cases, also 
ask, "Do you give your money to aid the cause 
of Christ?" "Yes." "Do you enjoy it?" And 
if the applicant could answer this last ques- 
tion in the affirmative, would it not be as clear 
an evidence of conversion as enjoyment of 
prayer ? 

But suppose a pastor does teach in all its length 
and breadth the doctrine of benevolence, and also 
insists on baptizing only those who are ready to 
give as well as to pray, will the benevolence of his 
church thereby be developed? It assuredly will 
be, if the pastor speaks every word in love, and 
is not impatient if he does not see immediate re- 

[251] 



Science and Prayer 

suits. Men can never be moved to benevolence 
by vituperation. Many do not give because they 
have never been fully instructed in the duty. 
They should not be denounced, but in love the 
whole Scriptural doctrine should be laid out be- 
fore them. Nor should pastors lose heart, if these 
men do not at once reach up in practice to the 
full height of this important duty. They should 
remember that the education and prejudices of a 
lifetime are in many cases to be overcome, and 
that all healthful educational processes are slow. 
But the truth patiently presented, year after year, 
in various forms, will at last as certainly accom- 
plish its mission, as the rains and the sunlight 
of the revolving years unfold in grandeur and 
beauty the trees of the forest. 

But pastors are called upon not only to unfold 
to their churches all that the Scriptures teach 
concerning the duty of giving, but also to present 
the claims of such benevolences as their churches 
may be able to meet. At the beginning of the 
year, so far as practicable, a scheme of benevo- 
lence should be determined by each church, so 
that all in the congregation may know what will 
claim their attention during the coming twelve 
months. The church is thus impressed at the 
start that it has work to do in giving. This im- 
pression will of itself be sufficient to bring those 
who have benevolent impulses to the determina- 
tion to give something to the various objects 
named in the schedule for the year; and having 
the whole plan for the year before them, they will 

[252] 



Christian Benevolence 

be able to make a just and fitting distribution of 
their gifts among the various objects claiming 
their benevolence. Whether such a scheme shall 
be formed or not usually depends on the pastor. 
If he has the confidence of his church, with or- 
dinary firmness he can generally lead them to 
adopt some such systematic plan of giving. 

The church having adopted it, shall the pastor 
present the claims of the different causes named 
in it, or shall he depend on agents to do this? 
Agents for gathering up the contributions of the 
churches, for the present, seem to be a necessity. 
If, however, every pastor would do his whole duty, 
they might be dispensed with. But many pastors 
as yet either do not understand their duty, or are 
unwilling to do it. So our great missionary soci- 
eties are compelled to resort to agents, to eke out, 
as well as they can, the imperfect work of the 
pastors. But the number of our churches is now 
so great, that our agents, in a single year, can 
reach only a few of the many. And if the pastors 
of those churches which the agents cannot visit, 
in any given year, do not see that the bodies over 
which they preside do their duty in giving, the 
work is left undone. Every pastor, therefore, 
who can be induced to do this work, relieves the 
agents of our great societies from the work of 
addressing his church, and enables them to reach 
those churches whose pastors neglect the duty of 
presenting the claims of benevolence. 

If, however, it were possible for the agents 
representing our great benevolent enterprises to 

[253] 



Science and Prayer 

visit all our churches each year, this would not 
secure an equitable distribution of our funds. An 
agent representing, perchance, some compara- 
tively unimportant enterprise, might have the 
gift of stirring up the emotions of his auditors, 
and so awakening their enthusiasm, that they 
might be led under his appeals to give a greater 
proportion than the cause which he represents 
relatively demands ; while a more important mis- 
sion work represented by some prosy, inefficient 
agent, might not receive its due share of funds. 
But if a pastor faithfully presents the various 
benevolences in their due order, and at stated 
times, the distribution of gifts among the various 
objects brought before his people will be more 
equitable, and a larger amount for benevolent pur- 
poses will unquestionably be secured; while such 
a course will steadily develop the disposition of 
the church to contribute from principle, and will 
do much to lift them up to the high standard of 
systematic giving. 

It will also incidentally be of vast advantage to 
the pastor. He will be compelled to make himself 
acquainted with the work of the various mission 
and educational enterprises. His intelligence 
will thereby be increased, and his power conse- 
quently enhanced. What he acquires he will 
largely impart to his church, and thus both pastor 
and people will be brought into thorough sym- 
pathy with all the great movements for the evan- 
gelization of the world. Such sympathy will 
inevitably express itself in liberal giving. 

[254] 



Christian Benevolence 

The development of Christian benevolence, 
therefore, depends upon the spirit and teaching 
of our pastors more than upon all other means 
combined. This is the key of the whole position. 
Pastors who are liberal in giving, who unfold 
faithfully and in love all that the Bible contains 
on the subject of benevolence, and present from 
year to year the claims of missions and of Chris- 
tian education, will have the joy of seeing their 
churches constantly growing in liberality. Of this 
there is no more doubt than that the thorough till- 
age and seasonable sowing of good soil will result 
ordinarily in rich and abundant harvests. In 
most churches where benevolence languishes, it 
will be found that pastors neglect the duties on 
which we have insisted in this paper. 

How can pastors be induced to undertake this 
neglected work, which is the hinge-point of all 
our mission and educational enterprises ? 

First, the pastors of poor churches must be, in 
some way, disabused of the false notion that ap- 
peals to their churches for missions will render 
their own already inadequate support doubly 
precarious. As praying develops the spirit of 
prayer, so giving develops the spirit of benevo- 
lence. Cheerful giving is an experience so 
precious and delightful, that he who has felt it 
once, longs for its repetition. Hence the more 
Christians give, the more they are disposed to 
give. The pastor, who in self-forgetfulness leads 
his church to contribute systematically, according 
to their ability, to objects of general interest out- 

[255] 



Science and Prayer 

side of themselves, will be usually himself best 
supported. He that loses his life saves it. 

Now that pastors may be rid of this false idea, 
against which we have just inveighed, and may 
be led to do the work requisite for developing 
Christian benevolence, their duty ought to "be set 
before them and urged upon them by the religious 
press, by discussions in ministerial conferences, 
associations, conventions and social unions. This 
agitation ought to go on, until the public senti- 
ment on the subject shall become so positive and 
pronounced, that it will be as disgraceful for a 
minister of the gospel to neglect to preach the 
Scriptural doctrine of benevolence, as to fail to 
preach the doctrines of repentance, faith and the 
atonement. 

Here too our theological seminaries have a 
duty which, in some of them, is somewhat neg- 
lected. They teach exegesis, doctrinal theology, 
history and homiletics, but either quite neglect 
pastoral duties, or teach them with little care. 
Young men who have no thorough training in 
pastoral work are sent out to take charge of 
churches. Something, to be sure, they have picked 
up by being thrown in contact with ministers and 
churches; but in reference to many of the most 
important duties of a Christian pastor they are 
the merest novices. Years pass away before some 
of them fully learn their duty in reference to the 
benevolence of the churches ; and some of them, it 
is to be feared, never learn it. Would it not be 
well for the ablest pastors of our churches fre- 

[256] 



Christian Benevolence 

quently to give courses of lectures in our semi- 
naries on the whole round of pastoral duties? 
Then, it may be, our young men might go forth 
better equipped for their tasks as pastors, and 
taking thoroughly and intelligently in hand the 
work of benevolence in our churches, our missions 
would be more abundantly supplied with funds 
and augmented in power, while our institutions 
of learning would no longer be crippled for lack 
of needful endowments. 

I have not dwelt at all, in this paper, on the best 
methods of collecting money in our churches ; not 
because these are not important; but I felt as- 
sured that no system of collecting funds could 
prove effective unless it was energized by a strong 
public sentiment. Hence I have tried to give 
emphasis to that which is most important. With 
such public sentiment awakened in favor of giv- 
ing, almost any method of gathering contribu- 
tions will secure great results. The apostolic 
method, however, so far as we can gather it from 
the Scriptures, was that each believer should con- 
tribute each week according as God had prospered 
him. And, on the whole, weekly or monthly con- 
tributions are manifestly best now. Men who 
work for day wages and salaries usually find it 
easier to pay a small sum each week or month 
than the aggregate of these sums for a year, at 
one time. And while most of those in our churches 
are above want, they are not rich. Many of them 
who would find it very inconvenient, and would 
probably refuse to give at any one time a large 

[257] 



Science and Prayer 

amount, could and would give it in small sums 
distributed through the year. Moreover, this con- 
stant giving forms the habit of benevolence much 
more effectually than an extraordinary effort once 
in twelve months, and thus much more powerfully 
tends to develop the grace of giving. 

But no such system of giving will run itself. 
When it is undertaken, the pastor, or some one 
else, must see to it that through committees and 
solicitors every member of the church is reached 
and that all pay the weekly or monthly subscrip- 
tions made. 

Finally, if we would most effectively develop 
the benevolence of our churches there must be 
absolute fidelity in the use of the funds contrib- 
uted. The money must go in straight lines to the 
object for which it is given. The smallest possi- 
ble amount consistent with justice and the secur- 
ing of the highest efficiency must be consumed on 
the salaries of those who serve as secretaries and 
agents. The most able missionaries, home and 
foreign, must be employed. Money expended on 
beneficiaries must sustain young men of piety 
and brains. Institutions endowed with the money 
of the churches must give back to the churches 
ministers and laymen with minds well stored, and 
intellects sharply disciplined. Nothing so much 
discourages giving as any diversion of funds or 
unwise expenditure of money by those who have 
intrusted to them the management of our benevo- 
lences; and nothing does more to encourage giv- 
ing than the faithful and economical use of the 

[258] 



Christian Benevolence 

money contributed, and the successful accom- 
plishment of the work fostered and encouraged 
by it. 

There is money enough in our churches to carry 
forward the mission and educational enterprises 
already begun, on a much larger scale than we, 
as yet, have dared to undertake, without percep- 
tibly diminishing our wealth or comforts. But all 
the members of our churches have not yet learned 
that fundamental fact of Christian experience 
that they and all their possessions belong to 
Christ, and that they are simply his stewards to 
dispense their wealth for his glory. When that 
lesson is really learned, then money for benevolent 
purposes will be poured out without stint. But 
if the churches ever learn the lesson, our pastors 
must teach it, enforce it, and illustrate it by their 
example. The Spirit, too, must be poured out 
mightily till Christians are lifted up out of their 
selfishness into Christ, and, partaking largely of 
his life, learn by happy experience the truth of 
his words, that "it is more blessed to give than to 



[259] 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



infflffl 



Emm 



Wm 



HI 



limb 

HUH ; i 







IHiHiBlii 






liilin HI 



m 



"H 



mb 



nAP 



m 

Hi 



S8HBH nml&BU 

SHI 

■ 



KffllifliiH ttHtliS 



HiHIIH mM 

MM— ^g 

uHHlMr 

■■■■■II 




hBhi 



■ 

mm 






MMMMi 

hVI 

II #;i 
Hi 



HffiL 



MHH 



JH 



